## Facts

- Joseph Robert Stoot worked for Fluor Drilling Services, Inc. as a derrickman aboard the jack-up drilling rig *MR. DAVE* about twelve miles off the Texas coast.
- Fluor contracted with D & D Catering Service, Inc., an independent contractor, to provide galley services on the rig; D & D employed the galley staff, including chief cook Eloise Porter.
- Stoot’s duties often prevented him from eating during regular meal hours, so he frequently sought meals at irregular times.
- Porter complained about feeding Stoot outside regular hours; after Stoot raised the issue with Fluor’s toolpusher, the toolpusher instructed Porter to feed Stoot as needed.
- Porter later confronted Stoot in the galley, accusing him of “making trouble” and calling him a “trouble maker.”
- After Stoot responded with a personal insult, Porter came into the dining area wielding a carving or butcher knife and attacked him.
- Porter’s attack severed two fingers and lacerated another on Stoot’s right hand.
- Stoot sued D & D for damages under general maritime law, seeking to hold D & D responsible for Porter’s conduct.

## Issues

1. Whether an independent contractor supplying galley personnel to a vessel may be held vicariously liable under general maritime law for an employee’s intentional tort committed aboard the vessel.
2. Whether Porter’s knife assault occurred within the course and scope of her employment such that D & D could be vicariously liable.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s take-nothing judgment for D & D.
- The court declined to resolve broadly whether a galley-services contractor can ever be vicariously liable for shipboard employees treated as crew.
- Assuming vicarious liability could apply in some settings, the court held D & D was not liable because Porter’s assault was outside the course and scope of her employment.
- The court characterized the attack as a personal, retaliatory act triggered by insults and resentment, not an act serving D & D’s business.

## Legal Principles

- Under general maritime law, vicarious liability generally requires that the employee’s tort occur in the course and scope of employment, meaning it is in furtherance of the employer’s business and reasonably incidental to assigned duties.
- Intentional torts may fall within the scope of employment only when the conduct is sufficiently connected to the employee’s work responsibilities (including situations where force is foreseeably used to perform assigned tasks).
- A purely personal assault motivated by personal animus, representing a marked departure from assigned duties, is outside the scope of employment and is not imputed to the employer.

## Conclusion

Because the cook’s knife attack stemmed from a personal dispute and was not in furtherance of her cooking and serving duties, the Fifth Circuit held the assault was outside the course and scope of employment and affirmed judgment for the catering company under general maritime law.


Stoot v. D & D Catering Serv., Inc., 807 F.2d 1197 (5th Cir. 1987)