Johnson v. Dufrene

• Decision Date: 20 May 1983
• Docket Number: No. CA-0075,CA-0075
• Citation: 433 So.2d 1109
• Parties: David JOHNSON and Earl Roberts, Individually and as the Administrator of the Estate of His Son, Ryan Roberts v. Alvin P. DUFRENE, State Farm Mutual Insurance Company and the City of New Orleans.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Page 1109

433 So.2d 1109

David JOHNSON and Earl Roberts, Individually and as the Administrator of the Estate of His Son, Ryan Roberts v. Alvin P. DUFRENE, State Farm Mutual Insurance Company and the City of New Orleans.

No. CA-0075.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana Fourth Circuit.

May 20, 1983.

Rehearing Denied July 26, 1983.

William P. Schuler, Law Offices of Manuel A. Fernandez, Chalmette, for plaintiffs-appellees.

C. Gordon Johnson, Jr., Porteous, Toledano, Hainkel & Johnson, New Orleans, for State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

Peter C. Rizzo, New Orleans, for defendants-appellants.

Avis Marie Russell, Asst. City Atty., George R. Simno, III, Deputy City Atty., Salvador Anzelmo, City Atty., New Orleans, for defendants-appellants and appellee.

Before AUGUSTINE, BARRY and KLEES, JJ.

AUGUSTINE, Judge.

This suit arises out of an automobile collision in Chalmette, Louisiana on July 2, 1978. Plaintiff David Johnson, heading west on St. Bernard Highway, had stopped for a red light at Paris Road. When the light changed in his favor, he remained stationary waiting for a turning vehicle to clear the intersection. At that moment, defendant Alvin Dufrene was also driving westerly on St. Bernard. He failed to detect soon enough that Johnson's vehicle was stopped dead on the road in front of him and, unable to control his car on the rain-slick highway, forcefully collided with Johnson from the rear, causing the injuries which are the basis of this litigation.

It was learned that at the time of the accident, Dufrene was an off-duty New Orleans policeman and that the automobile he was driving was owned by the City of New Orleans. Johnson and his guest passengers Earl Roberts and Ryan Roberts joined as plaintiffs in this action for negligence against Dufrene and his insurer, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. The City of New Orleans was also named defendant, under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

Following trial on the merits, judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiffs David Johnson and Earl Roberts against Dufrene and the City. The trial court dismissed Ryan Roberts as a plaintiff and State Farm as a defendant. This appeal followed.

Dufrene's original negligence was not seriously contested at trial, and it presents no real dispute here. Rather, the dispositive issues now raised are:

1) Whether, at the time of the accident, Dufrene was acting within the course and scope of his employment as a police officer for the City of New Orleans, and

2) Whether the trial court erred in awarding $659,774.00 in general damages to Earl Roberts.

LIABILITY

The trial court held the City liable to plaintiffs under the doctrine of respondeat superior, finding that at the time of the accident, Dufrene was acting within the course and scope of his employment as a New Orleans police officer. That conclusion was based upon proof that Dufrene was driving an unmarked police car given to him in connection with his duties; that he had unrestricted permission to operate the vehicle as his own; and that Dufrene was "on call" when the accident occurred.

The City does not contest those facts, but argues that unless at the time of the collision, Dufrene was engaged in a function for which he was employed, there can be no vicarious liability on its part, and further, that merely operating a vehicle owned by one's employer does not impose vicarious liability on the employer where the employee's trip is a purely personal one. Keen v. Pel State Oil Co., Inc., 332 So.2d 286 (La.App. 2d Cir.1976). The City contends that Dufrene was engaged in a purely personal undertaking when he negligently collided with the plaintiffs--having just returned from his brother-in-law's birthday party Dufrene was driving his mother-in-law to her New Orleans residence.

Article 2320 of the Louisiana Civil Code is the governing authority in this matter. It provides that:

"Masters and employers are answerable for the damage occasioned by their servants and overseers, in the exercise of the functions in which they are employed."

The language "in the exercise of the functions in which they are employed" is the Codal equivalent of the more common phrase "in the course and scope of employment." Romero v. Hogue, 77 So.2d 74 (La.App. 1st Cir.1954).

Whether an employee is within the course and scope of his employment during any given incident presents a question that is not answerable except by general rules, given the myriad contexts in which it might arise. The specific inquiry is whether the employee's tortious conduct "was so closely connected in time, place and causation to his employment duties as to be regarded a risk of harm fairly attributable to the employer's business, as compared with conduct motivated by purely personal considerations entirely extraneous to the employer's interest". Daniels v. Conn., 382 So.2d 945 (La.1980); LeBrane v. Lewis, 292 So.2d 216 (La.1974). In those instances where the injury is caused by an employee's negligence while driving a vehicle owned by his employer, our jurisprudence has repeatedly stated that every case must be decided on its own facts. The important considerations which bear on the result are whether the vehicle was being used in such a manner as to benefit the employer, Taylor v. Lumpkin, 391 So.2d 74 (La.App. 4th Cir.1980); whether the employee was subject to the employer's control at the time of the accident, Keen v. Pel State Oil Co., Inc., 332 So.2d 286 (La.App. 2d Cir.1976); whether the employee's use of the vehicle was authorized by the employer, Harding v. Christiana, 103 So.2d 301 (La.App. Orleans 1958); Futch v. W. Horace Williams Co., 26 So.2d 776 (La.App. 1st Cir.1946); reh. den., 27 So.2d 184; and whether the employee's motive arose from personal objectives or, instead, from his employer's concerns, Keen, supra, Johns v. Hunt Lumber Company, Inc., 250 So.2d 543 (La.App. 2d Cir.1971).

A review of the evidence discloses that each of the above factors is present in this case. At the time of this incident, Alvin Dufrene was a sergeant in the New Orleans Police Department, assigned to the Technical Services Bureau, a division which, among other things, maintains custody of police records. Dufrene was commander of the public records unit and was also assistant supervisor of records and identification. Offense and accident records were stored at police headquarters in sophisticated filing machines which, unfortunately, had a tendency to malfunction from time to time. Because it was essential to the police department that its criminal records be available twenty-four hours a day, Sergeant Dufrene was selected to attend a special school in Cincinnati, Ohio to learn how to correct malfunctions in the filing machines if they should arise. Dufrene was also the custodian of the department's major felony reports, which were filed in a room to which he alone had access after normal working hours.

Some time before this incident, the N.O.P.D. maintained a large fleet of unmarked automobiles, many of which were assigned to individual policemen, Dufrene among them. The police officers were allowed to use the automobiles as their own, with little restriction. In response to the rising expense of such a policy, however, a board of review determined that thereafter, a policeman would be allowed the regular personal use of a vehicle only when his duties required it for a specific purpose.

Major Earl Burmaster was a member of that review board and was also one of Dufrene's immediate supervisors. He testified that Dufrene was advised that he should continue to use his unmarked car because his expertise in repairing the record machines was in critical demand at all times. Dufrene's automobile was therefore equipped with a police radio so that even while driving on a personal mission, he would be available to return to headquarters to repair the record machines at a moment's notice. In short, Sergeant Dufrene was "on call" twenty-four hours a day.

The foregoing facts compel the conclusion that at the time of the collision, Sergeant Dufrene was acting within the course and scope of his employment. It does not stretch the meaning to say that Dufrene conferred a "benefit" to his employer every time he rode in his own police car rather than, for instance, his wife's personal automobile. By virtue of the car's police radio, he was accessible, and his accessibility was deemed vitally necessary to the N.O.P.D. in the performance of its most important functions. Similarly, driving the police car even while on personal missions was itself a part of Dufrene's duty to remain "on call" and subject to his employer's control. Thus, it cannot be said that Sergeant Dufrene's mission was purely personal. Being "on call" at all times, he was therefore duty-bound to use his police car rather than another, and in carrying out that duty, he performed a function of his employment.

Accordingly, we hold that Sergeant Dufrene's tortious conduct "was so closely connected in time, place and causation to his employment duties as to be regarded a risk of harm fairly attributable to the employer's business." Daniels, supra. It follows that the trial court did not err in finding the City liable for Dufrene's negligent act under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

Quantum

The trial court awarded damages to plaintiff Earl Roberts in the amount of $750,641.43. Of that sum, special damages of $60,867.43 were awarded by stipulation; plaintiff Roberts appeals the remaining award of general damages ($659,774.00), arguing that it is insufficient. The defendants also appeal, contending that the award is excessive.

At the time of the accident, Earl Roberts was 27 years of age and earning a gross annual income of $20,800.00 as a maintenance...