Grimble v. Brown

Decision Date18 January 1965
Docket NumberNo. 47338,47338
Citation247 La. 376,171 So.2d 653
PartiesGeorge W. GRIMBLE v. Richard E. BROWN, Jr., Administrator, etc., et al.
CourtLouisiana Supreme Court

Marion Weimer, Melvin L. Bellar, James A. Piper, Baton Rouge, for applicant.

Thomas J. Meunier, Dodd, Hirsch, Barker & Meunier, New Orleans, for amicus Curiae. C. O. Brown, Alexandria, for respondent.

McCALEB, Justice.

Plaintiff, having been discharged by his employer, Davidson Sash & Door, Inc., is seeking unemployment compensation benefits under the Louisiana Employment Security Law, R.S. 23:1471, et seq. The reason for plaintiff's discharge was his inability to perform his duties as a truck driver for the company due to the loss of his driver's license following his conviction for operating a vehicle while intoxicated, in violation of Section 98 of the Criminal Code (R.S. 14:98).

Both the local office of the Division of Unemployment Security and its Board of Review denied unemployment compensation, finding that plaintiff was disqualified under R.S. 23:1601(2) by reason of his discharge for misconduct connected with his employment.

After a review in the District Court, the ruling of the administrative body was affirmed, the judge resolving: '* * * the claimant voluntarily got himself into an intoxicated condition while it was foreseeable that he might thereby forfeit his right to operate motor vehicles and consequently be unable to continue in his employment. It was this willful jeopardizing of his ability to carry out the duties of his job which had a direct connection with the employment and which, under any reasonable view of the matter, constituted misconduct connected with the employment.'

Plaintiff then appealed to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, where the judgment was reversed. That court deduced that, since plaintiff's offense of drunken driving, which culminated in his conviction and the loss of his driver's license, occurred during off-duty hours while plaintiff was driving his own car, the misconduct related exclusively to his private life and, therefore, was not connected with his employment within the intendment of R.S. 23:1601(2). See Grimble v. Brown, 163 So.2d 373. In reaching this conclusion, the court relied heavily upon the decision of the Second Circuit Court of Appeal in Smith v. Brown, 147 So.2d 452.

On application of the Administrator of the Division of Employment Security, we granted certiorari and the matter has been submitted for our determination.

Counsel for the Administrator contend that this case is distinguishable from Smith v. Brown, supra, and another case, Alton Smith v. Brown, decided about a month before the instant case by the Third Circuit Court of Appeal (see 162 So.2d 179). They argue that the misconduct in the instant case (drunken driving), which disqualified plaintiff from performing the duties of his job as a truck driver, was causally related to his employment as it was a foreseeable act evidencing a wanton or wilful disregard of his employer's interests, as distinguished from certain acts of misconduct which relate solely to the employees' private lives--i.e., a parent's intentional failure to support his child (Smith v. Brown) or the carrying of concealed weapons (Alton Smith v. Brown) 1--and bear only remotely to the employment--i.e., involuntary jail confinement which prevents the employees from reporting for work.

While we find ourselves in full agreement with the observations of the district judge, which are quoted above, we do not think that it is either essential or proper to attempt a differentiation between this matter and the two Smith v. Brown cases. For, in our judgment, the decisions in the Smith cases (the correctness of which were not questioned by the Administrator on ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • Feagin v. Everett, E
    • United States
    • Arkansas Court of Appeals
    • June 29, 1983
    ...are in agreement with Maryland in its interpretation of the term "misconduct in connection with the work": Louisiana, Grimble v. Brown, 247 La. 376, 171 So.2d 653, cert. denied, 382 U.S. 861, 86 S.Ct. 123, 15 L.Ed.2d 99 (1965); Idaho, O'Neal v. Employment Security Agency, 89 Idaho 313, 404 ......
  • Yardville Supply Co. v. Board of Review, Dept. of Labor
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • January 26, 1988
    ...Louisiana have held to the contrary. See Look v. Maine Unemployment Ins. Com'n, 502 A.2d 1033 (Sup.Jud.Ct.Me.1985); Grimble v. Brown, 247 La. 376, 171 So.2d 653 (Sup.Ct.1965), cert. den. 382 U.S. 861, 86 S.Ct. 123, 15 L.Ed.2d 99 (1965). The Maine and Louisiana decisions are based on the vie......
  • Nelson v. Employment Sec. Dept.
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • April 22, 1982
    ...Empl. Comm'n v. Ryan, supra ; see also Osborn v. Review Bd. of Indiana, Empl. Sec. Div., 381 N.E.2d 495 (Ind.App.1978); Grimble v. Brown, 247 La. 376, 171 So.2d 653, cert. denied, 382 U.S. 861, 86 S.Ct. 123, 15 L.Ed.2d 99 (1965); Jackson v. Doyal, 231 So.2d 462 (La.Ct.App.1970); Sain v. Lab......
  • State Emp't Sec. Div. v. Murphy
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • March 31, 2016
    ...So.2d 24, 25 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1983) (same); Carter v. Caldwell, 151 Ga.App. 687, 261 S.E.2d 431, 432 (1979) (same); Grimble v. Brown, 247 La. 376, 171 So.2d 653, 656 (1965) (same); Smith v. Am. Indian Chem. Dependency Diversion Project, 343 N.W.2d 43, 45 (Minn.Ct.App.1984) (same); Stanton v......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT