## Facts

- Charles LeBrane, a 17-year-old kitchen helper at a hotel operated by Jack Tar Management Company, reported late to work.
- His immediate supervisor, James Lewis (kitchen steward with authority to hire and fire), told him to take the day off and leave the premises.
- Charles refused to leave despite warnings; Lewis terminated him, had him sign termination paperwork, and escorted him to obtain termination pay.
- The hotel manager was unavailable; while returning by elevator, Lewis and Charles argued heatedly and exchanged profanities.
- A physical fight began as they exited; Lewis ultimately stabbed Charles in the hotel’s basement loading area, on the employer’s premises, as Charles attempted to flee.
- The trial court found Lewis used excessive force and committed an intentional tort, making Lewis personally liable.
- A separate determination became final that Charles had no workers’ compensation remedy because the injury occurred after his employment was terminated.

## Issues

1. Whether Lewis was acting within the scope of his employment when he stabbed the discharged employee, such that the employer and its insurer were vicariously liable under respondeat superior.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Supreme Court held Lewis acted within the scope of his employment at the time of the stabbing.
- The court reversed the appellate court’s ruling that the assault was purely personal and outside the scope of employment.
- The court imposed vicarious liability on the employer and its insurer for damages caused by Lewis’s tort.

## Legal Principles

- An employer may be vicariously liable for an employee’s intentional tort when the act is closely connected in time, place, and causation to the employee’s assigned duties and is a risk attributable to the employer’s business.
- Conduct arising from the performance of supervisory functions (including discharge and removal of an employee from the premises) can fall within the scope of employment even if carried out with excessive and wrongful force.
- The absence of a workers’ compensation remedy for the injured party does not bar a separate finding that the tortfeasor-employee acted within the scope of employment for respondeat superior purposes.

## Conclusion

Because the stabbing occurred on the employer’s premises and arose directly from Lewis’s execution of supervisory duties in discharging and removing Charles from the workplace, the court treated the assault as a job-connected risk and held the employer and insurer vicariously liable.


LeBrane v. Lewis, 292 So. 2d 216 (La. 1974)