Michaelman v. Amiss

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Michaelman v. Amiss

376 So. 2d 1029, 1979 La. App. LEXIS 3090

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedOctober 8, 1979

DocketNo. 12774

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 376 So. 2d 1029 (Michaelman v. Amiss) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Michaelman v. Amiss, 376 So. 2d 1029, 1979 La. App. LEXIS 3090 (La. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

LOTTINGER, Judge.

This is an action ex delicto by Vernon Michaelman, a prisoner, against J. A1 Amiss, Sheriff of East Baton Rouge Parish; Rodger Aucoin, Warden of the East Baton Rouge Parish Prison; the Parish of East Baton Rouge; the State of Louisiana; and the North River Insurance Company. The plaintiff sued for injuries received while he was incarcerated in the East Baton Rouge Parish Prison. From a judgment maintaining the exception of no cause of action and dismissing the plaintiff’s suit against the State of Louisiana, the plaintiff has appealed.

Plaintiff-appellant argues that the trial judge erroneously relied on the case of Wambles v. State, 283 So.2d 331 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1973), in dismissing his suit against the State. He contends that the State of Louisiana is responsible under the theory of respondeat superior for damages caused by the sheriff or deputy sheriff.

In Foster v. Hampton, 352 So.2d 197 (La.1977), the Supreme Court reasoned that since a deputy sheriff is an officer of the State, "[t]he State, then, may be considered the deputy sheriff’s ‘employer.’ ” Thus, “the doctrine of respondeat superior might be available to hold the State vicariously liable.” (352 So.2d 201).

This statement and conclusion in Foster v. Hampton, supra, were pure dicta because the Supreme Court had already resolved the issue of whether a sheriff is liable for the negligent acts of his deputy. We seriously question the proposition that the state should be considered the employer of a deputy sheriff merely because a deputy sheriff is an officer of the State. We believe the better reasoning is found in Wambles V. State, supra, and thus find no error on the part of the trial judge.

Therefore, for the above and foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed at appellant’s costs.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

LOTTINGER, Judge.

This is an action ex delicto by Vernon Michaelman, a prisoner, against J. A1 Amiss, Sheriff of East Baton Rouge Parish; Rodger Aucoin, Warden of the East Baton Rouge Parish Prison; the Parish of East Baton Rouge; the State of Louisiana; and the North River Insurance Company. The plaintiff sued for injuries received while he was incarcerated in the East Baton Rouge Parish Prison. From a judgment maintaining the exception of no cause of action and dismissing the plaintiff’s suit against the State of Louisiana, the plaintiff has appealed.

Plaintiff-appellant argues that the trial judge erroneously relied on the case of Wambles v. State, 283 So.2d 331 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1973), in dismissing his suit against the State. He contends that the State of Louisiana is responsible under the theory of respondeat superior for damages caused by the sheriff or deputy sheriff.

In Foster v. Hampton, 352 So.2d 197 (La.1977), the Supreme Court reasoned that since a deputy sheriff is an officer of the State, "[t]he State, then, may be considered the deputy sheriff’s ‘employer.’ ” Thus, “the doctrine of respondeat superior might be available to hold the State vicariously liable.” (352 So.2d 201).

This statement and conclusion in Foster v. Hampton, supra, were pure dicta because the Supreme Court had already resolved the issue of whether a sheriff is liable for the negligent acts of his deputy. We seriously question the proposition that the state should be considered the employer of a deputy sheriff merely because a deputy sheriff is an officer of the State. We believe the better reasoning is found in Wambles V. State, supra, and thus find no error on the part of the trial judge.

Therefore, for the above and foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed at appellant’s costs.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

376 So. 2d 1029, 1979 La. App. LEXIS 3090, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michaelman-v-amiss-lactapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack