Ryback v. Belle

Citations: 753 So. 2d 383; 98 La.App. 1 Cir. 2766; 2000 La. App. LEXIS 333; 2000 WL 201975Docket: No. 98CA2766

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; February 17, 2000; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

Lead Opinion SummaryLead Opinion OriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorLead Opinion AnalysisLead Opinion SummaryLead Opinion AnalysisLead Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

On June 28, 1994, Richard Paul Ryback, a minor employee of Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., was attacked by his co-worker Jacques Mitchell Belle while unloading a truck in Denham Springs, Louisiana. After an incident involving a walk-in freezer door, where Mr. Ryback accidentally closed the door on Mr. Belle, Mr. Belle exited the freezer, threatened, and physically assaulted Mr. Ryback. Subsequently, Mr. Ryback's parents filed a lawsuit against Mr. Belle, supervisors Ronald Blanchard and Ricky Martin, and Winn-Dixie. At trial, the claims against the supervisors were dismissed, leaving Mr. Belle and Winn-Dixie as defendants. The jury found Mr. Belle liable for intentional battery and awarded damages totaling $72,500, inclusive of medical expenses, compensation for pain and suffering, lost wages, and loss of consortium for Mrs. Ryback.

The Rybacks later filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), which the trial court partially granted, ruling the jury's finding that the incident was not employment-related could not be supported by reasonable minds. The court awarded the Rybacks the jury's total damages against both defendants. Winn-Dixie appealed the JNOV, with the appellate court set to assess whether the trial court erred in granting the JNOV based on whether the evidence overwhelmingly favored the moving party, without evaluating witness credibility and resolving all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party.

Reasonable men exercising impartial judgment could conclude differently, indicating error in granting the motion and supporting reinstatement of the jury verdict according to Anderson. An employer is not vicariously liable for an employee’s intentional tort unless the employee acts within the scope of their duties and furthers the employer's objectives, as established in Scott. Each case must be evaluated on its facts to determine if the employee’s conduct falls within the scope of employment. In the present case, Mr. Ryback accidentally closed a freezer door, leading to an unprovoked attack by Mr. Belle, who verbally and physically assaulted him. Mr. Ryback did not resist. 

LeBrane outlines a four-part test for vicarious liability, examining whether the tortious act was employment-related, incidental to the employee's duties, occurred on the employer’s premises, and took place during work hours. The Louisiana Supreme Court in Baumeister found that a supervisor's sexual assault was not attributable to the performance of their duties, as it did not align with the employer’s business interests. Similarly, in Pye, the court ruled that a subordinate's attack on a supervisor at work was not an act rooted in employment, as it was not a foreseeable risk of the job duties. The trial court granted summary judgment for the employer, noting the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the tortious act was employment-related or that the employer benefited from it.

In Barto v. Franchise Enterprises, Inc., the court addressed a case where a restaurant supervisor was stabbed by an employee during a theft investigation. The supervisor sued the employer under vicarious liability. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the supervisor, but the appellate court reversed this decision, concluding that the employee's act of theft and assault was outside the scope of employment and did not benefit the employer. In a related case, Allen v. Payne, Keller Company, Inc., the court upheld a jury's decision that an employee's injury from a co-worker's intentional act was not connected to employment duties, thus not warranting the employer's liability. The current case involved an attack on Mr. Ryback during work hours, but the jury reasonably determined that the attack was not related to the employee's duties, leading to a finding that the employer, Winn-Dixie, was not liable. The trial court's judgment granting a JNOV was deemed erroneous, and the original jury verdict was reinstated, with costs assessed against Mr. Ryback.