Vicarious Liability, Comparative Fault, and an Insolvent Tortfeasor
Dan drives a delivery van for Acme Foods. Acme's written policy forbids texting while driving, but Dan's supervisor frequently texts drivers for route changes. While responding to a supervisor's text, Dan runs a red light and strikes a car driven by Lisa. Lisa was texting and did not brake; her passenger, Marie, is injured. Acme's mechanic had written a memo two weeks earlier that the van's brakes were 'soft and unsafe,' but Acme delayed repair because of a busy season. Dan had two moving violations in the prior year. Marie sues Dan, Acme, and Lisa. The jury finds Marie's damages are $300,000. It allocates 50% fault to Dan, 20% to Acme for the brake defect, 20% to Lisa, and 10% to Marie for riding without a seatbelt. Acme is solvent; Lisa is judgment-proof. Marie's medical bills are $100,000.
1. Is Acme liable for Dan's conduct and for its own conduct?
Read the worked answer
Acme is vicariously liable for Dan's negligence. An employer is answerable for the damage caused by its employee in the course and scope of employment under La. C.C. art. 2320. Dan was delivering for Acme and responding to a supervisor's text about route changes when he ran the red light. The fact that Acme's written policy forbade texting does not take Dan outside the scope of employment; the supervisor's practice of texting drivers may even support direct negligence. Acme is also directly liable for the brake defect. The mechanic's memo shows Acme knew the brakes were unsafe and delayed repair. The jury's 20% allocation to Acme reflects that direct fault. Acme cannot avoid the direct-negligence finding by pointing only to Dan's conduct.
2. How much can Marie recover from Acme, and who bears Lisa's share?
Read the worked answer
Marie's total damages are $300,000. Under La. C.C. art. 2323, her own 10% fault reduces recoverable damages to $270,000. Dan's 50% share is $150,000; Acme is solidarily liable for that share as Dan's employer. Acme's own 20% direct share is $60,000. Marie can recover $210,000 from Acme. Lisa's 20% share is $60,000. Lisa is a separate concurrent tortfeasor, not a joint tortfeasor acting in concert with Dan or Acme, and Acme is not vicariously liable for Lisa. Under Louisiana's comparative-fault scheme, Acme is not solidarily liable for Lisa's share. Because Lisa is judgment-proof, Marie bears the loss of that $60,000. Marie also bears the $30,000 representing her own 10% fault. The $100,000 medical bills are part of the $300,000 award, not an additional item.