Case Name: Bobby Ray ROBERTS, Jr. v. Joseph T. BENOIT, the City of New Orleans, Parish of Orleans, Criminal Sheriff for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, Charles Foti, Individually, and XYZ Insurance Companies
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1991-09-09
Citations: 605 So. 2d 1032
Docket Number: No. 91-C-0394
Parties: Bobby Ray ROBERTS, Jr. v. Joseph T. BENOIT, the City of New Orleans, Parish of Orleans, Criminal Sheriff for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, Charles Foti, Individually, and XYZ Insurance Companies.
Judges: CALOGERO, C.J., and WATSON and DENNIS, JJ., dissent and assign reasons.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 605
Pages: 1032–1064

Head Matter:
Bobby Ray ROBERTS, Jr. v. Joseph T. BENOIT, the City of New Orleans, Parish of Orleans, Criminal Sheriff for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, Charles Foti, Individually, and XYZ Insurance Companies.
No. 91-C-0394.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Sept. 9, 1991.
Dissenting Opinion of Chief Justice Calogero Sept. 9, 1991; As Revised Sept. 10, 1991.
Dissenting Opinion of Justice Watson Sept. 9, 1991; As Revised Sept. 10, 1991.
Dissenting Opinion of Justice Dennis Sept. 11, 1991.
Rehearing Granted Nov. 1, 1991.
On Rehearing May 28, 1992.
Thomas A. Usry, Lloyd F. Schroeder, II, Usry and Weeks, Metairie, for defendant-applicant.
Jacob J. Amato, Jr., Lisa A. Dunn, Ama-to & Creely, Gretna, Robert A. Dragon, Jr., Dragon & Kellner, Lafayette, Ronald A. Welcker, Vincent J. Glorioso, Jr., Glorioso & Welcker, New Orleans, David Wyatt Robertson, Baton Rouge, for respondents.
Robert A. Dragon, Jr., Dragon & Kell-ner, Lafayette, Ronald A. Welcker, Glorio-so & Welcker, Frank J. D’Amico, Vincent J. Glorioso, Jr., New Orleans, David Wyatt Robertson, Baton Rouge, Stephen Guy de-Laup, Metairie, Jacob John Amato, Jr., Lisa Anne Dunn, Amato & Creely, Gretna, for plaintiffs-respondents.
T. Allen Usry, Lloyd F. Schroeder, II, Usry & Weeks, Metairie, for defendants-respondents.
Brett John Prendergast, New Orleans, for New Orleans City Attorney’s Office, amicus curiae.
William R. Coenen, Jr., Rayville, for Sheriff Gary K. Bennett, West Carroll Parish, Sheriff Lovell Graham, Richland Parish, Sheriff Eugene Parker, Franklin Parish, Louisiana Dist. Atty’s Ass’n, amicus curiae.
Homer E. Barousse, Jr., Edwards, Ste-fanski, Barousse, Cunningham, Stefanski & Zaunbrecher, Crowley, for Sheriff Kenneth Goss, Acadia Parish, amicus curiae.
Scott Gerard Vincent, Cleveland, Barrios, Kingsdorf & Casteix, New Orleans, for Sheriff Ed Layrisson, Tangipahoa Parish, amicus curiae.
John Robert Burgess, Burgess & Lee, Livingston, for Sheriff Odom Graves, Livingston Parish, amicus curiae.
Edwin L Blewer, Jr., Kelly W. Strickland, James Richard Sterritt, Cook, Yancey, King & Galloway, Shreveport, for Sheriff Don Hathaway, Caddo Parish, Sheriff Larry Deen, Bossier Parish, Sheriff J.R. Oakes, Claiborne Parish, Sheriff Floyd Lambert, DeSoto Parish, Sheriff Buddy Huckabay, Red River Parish, Sheriff Royce McMahen, Webster Parish, Sheriff Joe Sto-rey, Bienville Parish, amicus curiae.
Stephen Anees Mogabgab, Hulse, Nelson & Wanek, Covington, for Sheriff Pat Canu-lette, St. Tammany Parish, amicus curiae.
Tucker Lee Melancon, Melancon & Raba-lais, Marksville, for Sheriff William Belt, Avoyelles Parish, amicus curiae.
Stephen J. Oats, William Martin Hudson, III, Patrick B. Mclntire, Oats & Hudson, Lafayette, for Sheriff James R. Savoie, Cameron Parish, Sheriff Wayne Morein, Evangeline Parish, Sheriff Wiley Warren, Winn Parish, amicus curiae.
Richard Phillip Ieyoub, Atty. Gen., Thomas S. Halligan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Counsel for Hon. Richard P. Ieyoub, Atty Gen., and the State of La., amicus curiae.
Bradley Charles Myers, Kean, Miller, Hawthorne, D’Armond, McCowan & Jar-man, Baton Rouge, for Louisiana Mun. Ass’n, amicus curiae.
Thomas Allen Usry, Lloyd F. Schroeder, II, Usry & Weeks, Metairie, for Louisiana Sheriff’s Ass’n, Sheriff Thomas Mabile, Assumption Parish, Sheriff Floyd Hodges, Caldwell Parish, Sheriff Randy Maxwell, Concordia Parish, Sheriff Dale Rinicker, East Carroll Parish, Sheriff Freddie Pitre, Sr., Iberville Parish, Sheriff Van Beasley, Jackson Parish, Sheriff Wayne McGuffee, LaSalle Parish, Sheriff Willie W. Houck, Lincoln Parish, Sheriff Charles Harmon, Madison Parish, Sheriff Frank Carroll, Morehouse Parish, Sheriff Laymon God-win, Ouachita Parish, Sheriff Tommy Holl-ingsworth, Rapides Parish, Sheriff Eugene Holland, St. Helena Parish, Sheriff Joseph Nassar, St. James Parish, Sheriff Lloyd B. Johnson, St. John the Baptist Parish, Sheriff Huey Bourgeois, St. Mary Parish, Sheriff Fred E. Scott, Tensas Parish, Sheriff Belvin F. Bergeron, West Baton Rouge Parish, Sheriff William Daniel, West Felici-ana Parish, amicus curiae.
Steven Franklin Griffith, Destrehan, for Sheriff Johnny Marino, St. Charles Parish, amicus curiae.
Fred A. Book, Jr., Michael Steven Bever-ung, Lake Charles, for Sheriff Wayne McElveen, Calcasieu Parish, amicus curiae.
Daniel Rault Martiny, Metairie, for Sheriff Harry Lee, Jefferson Parish, Sheriff Ernest D. Wooton, Plaquemine Parish, ami-cus curiae.
Clark Raymond Cosse, III, Baton Rouge, for Louisiana Ass’n Bus. & Ind. amicus curiae.

Opinion:
HALL, Justice.
This is a suit for damages sustained by plaintiff, Bobby Ray Roberts, Jr., as a re- suit of the accidental discharge of a gun owned and possessed by Joseph T. Benoit, a commissioned deputy sheriff with the Orleans Parish Criminal Sheriffs Office. Plaintiff sued Benoit, the State of Louisiana, the City of New Orleans, the Parish of Orleans, the Criminal Sheriff for the Parish of Orleans, Sheriff Charles Poti, Jr., individually, and Southern American Insurance Company, the insurer for the Criminal Sheriff's Office. Plaintiff's wife, Kathy Roberts, intervened in this suit on behalf of herself and plaintiff's three minor children. The trial court found that plaintiff established the negligence of Benoit and Sheriff Foti, and awarded damages in the amount of $785,000 to plaintiff, $25,000 to plaintiff's wife, and $10,000 to each of plaintiff's three minor children. The court of appeal, finding that plaintiff established Sheriff Foti's negligence in hiring, commissioning and failing to adequately train Benoit, affirmed the trial court's judgment, with one judge dissenting in part. Roberts v. Benoit, 574 So.2d 1256 (La.App. 4th Cir.1991). Having granted Sheriff Foti's writ application, 575 So.2d 816 (La.1991), we now reverse in part and render judgment rejecting the demands against the sheriff.
FACTS
In March 1979, Sheriff Foti hired the defendant Benoit as a cook. In January 1981, Sheriff Foti commissioned the kitchen workers, including Benoit, as deputy sheriffs, enabling them to receive state supplemental pay. Before being commissioned, the kitchen workers completed a training course. Training was given on an intermittent basis over a six-week period and included only one day (eight hours) of firearm training.
During the training course, the trainees were instructed that while off duty, it was better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it, thereby impliedly encouraging deputies to carry a gun while off duty. The trainees were also given a copy of department regulations stating that when engaged in recreational activities which include the consumption of alcohol, a deputy should in all cases remove his firearm to a safe place, or leave it at home, before commencing with such activities. The regulations also stated that a weapon should be drawn only when one's life is in danger, or the use of deadly force is anticipated.
On October 25, 1981, the day of the accident, Benoit completed his regular kitchen duties at 2:30 p.m. After work, Benoit went home, bathed, changed clothes and went to his mother-in-law's home. Benoit then went to the home of his brother-in-law, Merlin Fontenette. While at Fonten-ette's home, Benoit drank a beer. Benoit and Fontenette then went to plaintiff's home to have plaintiff repair a broken light in Benoit's car. When they arrived at plaintiff's home, plaintiff was installing a stereo in another vehicle, and Benoit was drinking another beer. While there, Benoit drank a glass of wine and, by this time, was staggering a little.
Benoit had in his possession two weapons: a Ml carbine rifle which was in the trunk of his car, and a .38 caliber Charter Arms revolver purchased by him after he was commissioned as a deputy which was in an ankle holster on his leg. While at plaintiff's home, Benoit removed the revolver from the holster and played with the revolver for a period of almost forty-five minutes before the accident occurred. During this period, Benoit handed the re volver to Fontenette, who handed it back to Benoit; and, at one point, when the bullets fell from the revolver, plaintiff picked them off of the floor and handed them back to Benoit. Benoit cocked and uncocked the gun. During this period, plaintiff asked Benoit to put the gun away several times. Thereafter, the revolver discharged severely injuring plaintiff.
PARTIES' CONTENTIONS
No one contests the trial court's finding of defendant Benoit's negligence. Rather, the sole issue before this court is whether the sheriff in his official capacity should be held legally responsible for plaintiff's injuries. Plaintiff asserts two bases for holding Sheriff Foti liable: (1) direct liability for negligently hiring, commissioning and training Benoit; and (2) vicarious liability for his employee's tortious conduct. Defendant, on the other hand, contends that Sheriff Foti's allegedly deficient practices in hiring, commissioning and training Be-noit were neither a cause in fact nor a legal cause of plaintiff's injuries. Defendant further contends that no duty existed requiring Sheriff Foti to protect plaintiff against the risk of being shot by Benoit. Defendant still further contends that the sole cause of the accident was Benoit's negligence in engaging in horseplay with a loaded gun while intoxicated, an action in violation of Sheriff Foti's written regulations. Finally, defendant contends that to find Sheriff Foti legally responsible in this case would be, in essence, to impose absolute liability.
Agreeing with plaintiff, the trial court found Sheriff Foti primarily liable for negligently hiring, commissioning and training Benoit. Affirming, the court of appeal reasoned:
We find that the evidence supports the trial court's determination that Sheriff Foti did indeed breach his duty to ensure that Deputy Benoit, as a commissioned deputy sheriff, was adequately trained in the use of firearms. The failure to adequately train Deputy Benoit clearly was a cause in fact of plaintiff's injuries. But for his commission as a deputy sheriff, defendant Benoit would not have been carrying the weapon which caused plaintiff's injuries.
Roberts, 574 So.2d at 1263.
The dissenting judge, however, would have affirmed on the basis of vicarious liability. Relying on our holding in Ermert v. Hartford Insurance Co., 559 So.2d 467, 476 (La.1990), the dissent would have found that Benoit was acting within the scope of his employment by carrying a gun pursuant to his commission as a deputy. Particularly, the dissent observed that "the purpose of serving the sheriff's business 'actuated' Benoit's decision to carry the gun to an appreciable extent." Roberts, 574 So.2d at 1266.
LAW
At the outset, we identify two potential codal bases for imposing legal responsibility on Sheriff Foti: (1) primary liability under Civil Code Article 2315 and (2) vicarious liability under Civil Code Article 2320. In applying these general codal provisions to concrete master-servant problems, we have recognized the appropriateness of drawing freely from the common law jurisprudence. Ermert, supra. As the precise questions posed by the master-servant problem presented in the instant case have not previously been considered by the courts of this state, we begin by discussing the jurisprudence of other jurisdictions that have considered similar claims.
SIMILAR TORTS IN OTHER STATES
Under the common law jurisprudence, a third party injured by an off-duty deputy's negligent handling of a firearm has been recognized as having two potential theories for holding the deputy's municipal employer liable: (1) the common law doctrine of respondeat superior and (2) the tort of neg ligent hiring. The former is based on the deputy's negligence, which is imputed to the municipal employer; the latter is based upon the employer's independent negligence in hiring, commissioning, training and/or retaining the deputy. These two theories of liability are separate and independent. Peer v. City of Newark, 71 N.J.Super. 12, 176 A.2d 249 (1961). The major difference between them is that the tort of negligent hiring is not cabined to the narrow confines imposed by the respon-deat superior's "scope of employment" limitation. Peer, supra. A similar limitation, however, is imposed on the negligent hiring cause of action. This limitation is that the deputy in some respect be engaged in furthering the employer's business — law enforcement — when he "stepped beyond the line of duty." Nishan v. Godsey, 166 F.Supp. 6 (E.D.Tenn.1958); Strachan v. Kitsap County, 27 Wash.App. 271, 616 P.2d 1251, review denied, 94 Wash.2d 1025 (1980). Thus, the considerations relied upon by courts in imposing liability under the two doctrines are similar.
First, under the respondeat superior doctrine, a municipal employer has been held vicariously liable for the tortious acts of its deputy when the deputy, albeit technically "off duty," is acting within the scope of his employment. 18 E. McQuillan, The Law of Municipal Corporations, § 58.80 b (3d Rev.Ed.1977) (hereinafter "McQuillan"). In finding an off-duty deputy within the scope of his employment, courts have required only that the deputy be actively engaged in "police work" or performing some action furthering his police function. Collins v. City of New York, 11 Misc.2d 76, 171 N.Y.S.2d 710 (Sup.Ct.1958), aff'd, 8 A.D.2d 613, 185 N.Y.S.2d 740, and 7 N.Y.2d 822, 196 N.Y.S.2d 700, 164 N.E.2d 719 (1959). Emphasizing the peculiar nature of a policeman's employment, courts have found factors such as the time and place of the deputy's actions immaterial.
Because of the peculiar nature of the policeman's employment, the municipal employer has been held liable for injuries inflicted as a result of the officer's negligence, even where the policeman is technically off duty, for the reason that he is required by statute or regulation to be available to perform in his employer's behalf at all times, or because he is executing a function, e.g., cleaning a weapon, in furtherance of his employer's interest. The time and place of such cleaning would generally be considered immaterial.
Greenstone, Liability of Police Officers for Misuse of Their Weapons, 16 Clev.-Mar.L.Rev. 397, 408 (1967).
Relying on the requirement that the deputy be armed at all times, the court in Collins, supra, found an off-duty deputy that stumbled on a subway station platform, dropping the paper bag in which he was carrying his service revolver, as within the scope of his employment. In finding the municipal employer liable, the court reasoned that, "the defendant policeman though technically within the off duty classification was engaged in the execution of a function specifically prescribed by the defendant employer the City of New York and the careless or negligent performance of such duty — carrying a gun — nonetheless constituted performance of a requirement of his employment and in furtherance of his employer's interest." 171 N.Y.S.2d at 713 (emphasis added); Peer, supra; Kull v. City of New York, 32 N.Y.2d 951, 347 N.Y.S.2d 205, 300 N.E.2d 736 (1973); District of Columbia v. Davis, 386 A.2d 1195, 1205 (D.C.App.1978); Garner v. Saunders, 281 So.2d 392 (Fla.App. 2 Dist.1973).
The rationale for relying on the presence of a requirement that the deputy be armed at all times in imposing liability is that the public fisc should bear the loss associated with placing a dangerous instrumentality in an officer's hands on a round-the-clock basis: "The regulations requiring officers carry their guns at all times is for the benefit of the public; therefore, it is reasonable that the public, through the municipality, bear the monetary risk of negligent injury to innocent persons resulting from that requirement." District of Columbia, 386 A.2d at 1205. Stated differently, "[wjhere a municipal corporation requires its policemen to carry firearms at all times, it should be liable, just as a private employer, for not controlling its employees who are required by the employer to carry these highly dangerous instrumentalities." Garner, 281 So.2d at 393.
Conversely, absent such a requirement, the courts have been unwilling to extend liability to municipal employers. Fitzgerald v. McCutcheon, 270 Pa.Super. 102, 410 A.2d 1270 (1979); Conroy v. City of Ballwin, 723 S.W.2d 476 (Mo.App.1986); Nishan v. Godsey, 166 F.Supp. 6 (E.D.Tenn.1958).
Significantly, an attempt to equate the municipal employer's authorization of an off-duty deputy to carry a gun to such a requirement has been rejected. Fitzgerald, supra. In finding that a mere authorization, as opposed to requirement, that a deputy carry a weapon off duty insufficient to place the deputy within the scope of employment, the court in Fitzgerald held that to do so would impose too onerous of a burden on the employer:
This argument, if carried to its ultimate conclusion, would require the City to respond in damages for injuries caused by the negligent conduct of all off-duty police officers. We decline to impose such an onerous burden.
410 A.2d at 1272.
Even when a deputy is required to be armed at all times, the municipal employer will not always be held liable. See District of Columbia, supra. As the court in Collins, supra, observed:
It is important to distinguish this situation from the cases in which intoxicated or unbalanced police officers, generally after a tour of the bars, proceeded to shoot some innocent bystander. Absent proof of prior notice of such propensities on the part of the authorities, the city may not be held liable under the doctrine because the officer has then gone "outside of his employment, and without regard to his service, acting maliciously, or in order to effect some purpose of his own."
171 N.Y.S.2d at 714.
In sum, every conceivable discharge of a gun in an off-duty deputy's possession will not be found to be within the scope of employment. Id. The following cases are illustrative of the type of conduct that has been found sufficient to take off-duty deputies outside the scope of employment: Fitzgerald v. McCutcheon, 270 Pa.Super. 102, 410 A.2d 1270 (1979) (intoxicated off-duty deputy shooting neighbor during dispute over deputy's car keys); Dzing v. City of Chicago, 84 Ill.App.3d 704, 40 Ill.Dec. 420, 406 N.E.2d 121 (1 Dist.1980) (intoxicated off-duty deputy shooting his way into victim's apartment, believing he was confronting an intruder in his own apartment); Strachan v. Kitsap County, 27 Wash.App. 271, 616 P.2d 1251, review denied, 94 Wash.2d 1025 (1980) (accidental shooting by off-duty deputy engaged in horseplay with loaded gun); Nishan v. Godsey, 166 F.Supp. 6 (E.D.Tenn.1958) (reckless horseplay with loaded gun); See generally McQuillan, supra at § 58.80 b and c; Olson v. Staggs-Bilt Homes, Inc., 23 Ariz.App. 574, 534 P.2d 1073 (1975) (security guard engaged in horseplay was outside scope of employment).
We turn now to the tort of negligent hiring. Under this tort, a duty is imposed on a municipal employer in arming deputies to exercise reasonable care in hiring, training and retaining such deputies. McAndrew v. Mularchuk, 33 N.J. 172, 162 A.2d 820 (1960); Marusa v. District of Columbia, 484 F.2d 828, 831 (D.C.Cir 1973); Kull, supra; McQuillan, supra; Greenstone, Liability of Police Officers for Misuse of Their Weapons, 16 Clev.-Mar.L.Rev. 397, 410-11 (1967). The rationale impelling the recognition of a negligent hiring cause of action was clearly articulated by the New Jersey Supreme Court in McAndrew, supra:
Municipal entities must take cognizance of the hazard of sidearms. That knowl edge casts an obligation on them when they arm or sanction the arming of reserve patrolmen for active police duty. The obligation is to use care commensurate with the risk to see to it that such persons are adequately trained or experienced in the proper handling and use of the weapons they are to carry. If the official in general authority in the police department sends or permits a reserve officer to go out on police duty without such training or experience, his action is one of negligent commission — of active wrongdoing — , and if an injury results from an unjustified or negligent shooting by that officer in the course of performance of his duty, which is chargeable to the lack of training or experience, the municipality is liable.
162 A.2d at 827 (emphasis added); See also Steward v. Borough of Magnolia, 134 N.J.Super. 312, 340 A.2d 678, cert. denied, 68 N.J. 481, 348 A.2d 522 (1975) (finding a mandatory duty on the part of municipal employers to provide their deputies with adequate training in the use of firearms).
From the underscored language in McAndrew quoted above can be gleaned a limitation on the negligent hiring theory that the deputy, while not necessarily within the "scope of employment," be engaged in some respect in furthering the employer's business of law enforcement. See Conroy v. City of Ballwin, 723 S.W.2d 476 (Mo.App.1986); Nishan v. Godsey, 166 F.Supp. 6, 9 (E.D.Tenn.1958) (deputy was engaged in some respect in furthering the employer's business — law enforcement— when he "stepped beyond the line of duty"); Strachan, supra (while deputy was acting outside the scope of his employment — engaged in horseplay with a loaded gun — deputy's activities were arguably under the municipality's control and deputy was "performing police functions and carrying a firearm for that purpose").
Similar to the cases in which respondeat superior liability has been imposed, the courts in imposing negligent hiring liability have generally relied heavily upon the presence of a requirement that the deputy be armed at all times. Peer, supra; Marusa, supra. As with respondeat superior, the rationale for relying on the presence of such a requirement to impose negligent hiring liability is that, "[the] government has a duty to minimize the risk of injury to members of the public that is presented by [its] policy [of requiring deputies to carry service revolvers off duty]." Marusa, 484 F.2d at 831. Significantly, the court in Marusa, supra, observed that "[it was] not faced with the question of what liability the city might have for an off-duty policeman's tortious conduct, not involving the use of his service revolver." 484 F.2d at 831 n. 8.
Again, as in the respondeat superior cases discussed above, the courts have relied upon the absence of such a requirement that the deputy be armed at all times as a determinative factor for declining to impose negligent hiring liability. Nishan v. Godsey, 166 F.Supp. 6 (E.D.Tenn.1958) (citing lack of any department regulation requiring deputy to carry gun in declining to impose negligent hiring liability); Conroy v. City of Ballwin, 723 S.W.2d 476 (Mo.App.1986). In Conroy, supra, for instance, a third party was accidentally injured in the woods outside city limits by a stray bullet fired by an off-duty deputy engaged in target shooting. The deputy was using his own personal gun, one which he never used on duty. While the deputy was under a requirement that he carry a gun at all times, this requirement was inapplicable when the deputy was outside city limits. In refusing to find the municipal employer liable, the court emphasized that the accident occurred when the deputy was outside city limits and thus under no requirement to carry a weapon. The court further emphasized that the employer lacked control over its deputy's use of firearms while outside city limits, and therefore found that the employer had no duty to train its deputies in the proper use of firearms outside city limits.
The court in Conroy, supra, however, distinguished cases in which the municipal employer knew or should have known that the deputy's off-duty use of firearms created an unreasonable risk of harm to others. See also Nishan, supra (distinguishing cases such as McCrink v. City of New York, 296 N.Y. 99, 71 N.E.2d 419 (1947), in which liability was imposed upon an employer that had previous knowledge or should have known of the deputy's dangerous propensities, but nonetheless retained him on the force). The court in Conroy, however, found that for a duty to exist the employer's knowledge must be more than merely an awareness "that the [deputy] may use guns in his private civilian life without facts showing his unfitness to carry and use guns." 723 S.W.2d at 478; See e.g. Bonsignore v. City of New York, 683 F.2d 635 (2nd Cir.1982) (liability imposed upon city for failing to adopt adequate procedures for detecting mentally unfit deputies).
Thus, the courts in other jurisdictions that have addressed this issue have concluded that a municipal employer who negligently either hires, commissions, trains or retains an incompetent or unfit deputy may be liable to a third party injured as a proximate result of the employer's negligence. McQuillan, supra; Greenstone, Liability of Police Officers for Misuse of Their Weapons, 16 Clev.-Mar.L.Rev. 397, 410-11 (1967); Marusa v. District of Columbia, 484 F.2d 828, 831 (D.C.Cir.1973). Simply stated, the municipal employer is said to have a duty to exercise reasonable care in hiring, commissioning and training its deputies. This duty is not unique to sheriffs, but rather is common to all employers. Morgan v. District of Columbia, 449 A.2d 1102, 1108 n. 3 (D.C.App.1982), reh'g granted and opinion vacated, 452 A.2d 1197 (D.C.App.1982), aff'd on reh'g, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App.1983); Restatement (Second) of Agency § 213 (1958).
In determining the exact risks anticipated by the imposition of the duty to use care in employing others, it has been suggested that this duty should be confined to cases in which three factors are present:
(1) the employee and the plaintiff have been in places where each had a right to be when the wrongful act occurred;
(2) the plaintiff met the employee as a direct result of the employment; and
(3)the employer would receive some benefit from the meeting had the wrongful act not occurred.
Note, The Responsibility of Employers for the Actions of Their Employees: The Negligent Hiring Theory of Liability, 53 Chi-Kent L.Rev. 717, 730 (1977). These factors serve to balance the interests of all the parties — the employer, employee and public. Id. Overall, the most important element is establishing a connection between the employment and the plaintiff. Id. at 721. See also Speiser, Krause and Gans, The American Law of Torts § 4:8 (1983).
LOUISIANA LAW — VICARIOUS LIABILITY
In Louisiana, vicarious liability is based upon Civil Code Article 2320, which provides that an employer is liable for the tortious acts of its employees "in the exercise of the functions in which they are employed." As noted, relying on our decision in Ermert, supra, the dissent in the court of appeal suggests that Sheriff Foti should be held vicariously liable for Be-noit's tortious actions. Particularly, the dissent reasons that Sheriff Foti's authorizing Benoit to carry a gun by commissioning Benoit as a deputy rendered Benoit's activity — carrying a gun off duty — in furtherance of Sheriff Foti's business of law enforcement. We disagree.
While Sheriff Foti authorized Benoit to carry a gun, it is undisputed that there was no requirement — either by statute or by regulation — that Benoit carry a gun, on or off duty. We find that to extend vicarious liability merely because the deputy was carrying a gun while off duty would be to place too onerous a burden on the sheriff and further "would be unreasonable and would exceed the legitimate legal and social purposes which sustain the doctrine." Fitzgerald, 410 A.2d at 1272.
We further find that Ermert, supra, is distinguishable factually and legally. Factually, Ermert involved an atypical master-servant relationship; the employee was an executive and a principal owner of the business. In stark contrast, this case involves a typical master-servant relationship; Sher iff Foti employed Benoit as a kitchen steward, a position we characterized in Miller v. Keating, 349 So.2d 265 (La.1977), as a relatively subordinate employee. While we recognize that Benoit was commissioned as a deputy, his employment duties remained as a kitchen worker, not as a law enforcement officer.
Legally, we reject the dissent's suggestion that in Ermert, supra, we revamped the standards for determining master-servant vicarious liability. Our decision in Er-mert reiterated and further explained the standards we previously enunciated in LeBrane v. Lewis, 292 So.2d 216, 218 (La.1974), and adapted those standards to the atypical master-servant problem that was before us. Under the LeBrane test, the determinative question is whether the employee's tortious conduct "was so closely connected in time, place, and causation to his employment duties as to be regarded as a risk of harm fairly attributable to the employer's business, as compared with conduct motivated by purely personal considerations entirely extraneous to the employer's interest." LeBrane, supra; See also Kogos v. Payton, 522 So.2d 1198, 1200 (La.App. 4th Cir.1988) (applying this test to find an off-duty deputy engaged in barroom brawl outside scope of employment); Schaeffer v. Duvall, 421 So.2d 262, 264-65 (La.App. 4th Cir.1982), writ denied, 427 So.2d 1209 (La.1983). Ermert explained that because vicarious liability is imposed based upon the attribution of business-related risks to the enterprise, specific conduct may be considered within the scope of employment even though it is done in part to serve the purposes of the servant. If the purpose of serving the master's business actuates the servant to any appreciable extent, the master is subject to liability if the act is otherwise within the service. In a negligence case, as distinguished from an intentional tort case, the court need only determine whether the servant's general activities at the time of the tort were within the scope of employment.
Applying the LeBrane and Ermert tests to the instant case, we find that Benoit was unquestionably acting outside the scope of his employment at the time of the tragic accident. The "time" of the accident was hours after Benoit's employment duties had ceased. The "place" of the accident was far removed from the Sheriff's kitchen. The "causation" or motive for Benoit's presence at the plaintiff's home was purely personal and unrelated to his employment duties; he was attempting to have his car repaired. Neither his general activities nor his specific activity which caused the harm, horseplaying with the gun, had any connection with the furtherance of his employer's business. Serving a function of the sheriff's office did not actuate Benoit to any appreciable extent. Benoit's activities— playing with a loaded revolver while intoxicated — were in violation of one of Sheriff Foti's written regulations. Moreover, as noted, Sheriff Foti had no regulation requiring Benoit to carry a gun while on or off duty. Accordingly, we find that Benoit was not exercising any function for which he was employed, and Sheriff Foti is therefore not vicariously liable under Civil Code Article 2320.
LOUISIANA LAW — NEGLIGENCE LIABILITY
While the facts of this case present a novel issue in this state, we do not view this case as presenting a novel concept in our negligence law. Rather, we view this case as calling for the application of our standard negligence analysis. The standard negligence analysis we employ in determining whether to impose liability under Civil Code Article 2315 is the duty-risk analysis, which consists of the following four-prong inquiry:
I. Was the conduct in question a substantial factor in bringing about the harm to the plaintiff, i.e., was it a cause-in-fact of the harm which occurred?
II. Did the defendant owe a duty to the plaintiff?
III. Was the duty breached?
IV. Was the risk, and harm caused, within the scope of protection afforded by the duty breached?
See Mart v. Hill, 505 So.2d 1120, 1122 (La.1987); Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., 260 La. 542, 256 So.2d 620 (1972); See also McNamara, The Duties and Risks of the Duty-Risk Analysis, 44 La.L.Rev. 1227 (1984); Crowe, The Anatomy of a Tort-Greenian, as Interpreted by Crowe who has been Influenced by Malone — A Primer, 22 Loy.L.Rev. 903 (1976) (hereinafter "Crowe"); Robertson, Reason Versus Rule in Louisiana Tort Law: Dialogues on Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., 34 La.L.Rev. 1 (1973). For a plaintiff to recover on a negligence theory, all four inquiries must be affirmatively answered. Based on the facts of this case, we conclude that all four inquiries cannot be answered affirmatively.
CAUSE IN FACT
In the instant case, the first inquiry is whether the sheriffs conduct complained of was a cause in fact of plaintiffs injuries. The trial court answered this inquiry in the affirmative, finding that Sheriff Foti's negligence in commissioning Benoit as a deputy was a cause in fact of plaintiffs injuries. In affirming, the court of appeal found that "[t]he failure to adequately train Deputy Benoit clearly was a cause in fact of plaintiffs injuries. But for his commission as a deputy sheriff, defendant Benoit would not have been carrying the weapon which caused plaintiffs injuries." 574 So.2d at 1263. The court of appeal also found that Sheriff Foti was negligent in hiring Benoit in the first place.
In reviewing these factual findings, we are mindful of the Louisiana tradition of giving great deference to the findings of the trier of fact, jury or judge. Lirette v. State Farm Insurance Co., 563 So.2d 850, 852-53 (La.1990); Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 558 So.2d 1106, 1111-12 (La.1990); Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La.1989); Harris v. Pizza Hut of Louisiana, Inc., 455 So.2d 1364, 1370 (La.1984); Arceneaux v. Domingue, 365 So.2d 1330 (La.1978). We, nonetheless, must determine whether the plaintiff has met his burden of establishing a factual, causal relationship between the defendant's actions and his injuries, i.e., a cause in fact.
Cause in fact is generally a "but for" inquiry; if the plaintiff probably would have not sustained the injuries but for the defendant's substandard conduct, such conduct is a cause in fact. Fowler v. Roberts, 556 So.2d 1, 5 (La.1989); Malone, Ruminations on Dixie Drive It Yourself Versus American Beverage Company, 30 La.L.Rev. 363, 370 (1970). Stated differently, the inquiry is "[d]id the defendant contribute to the plaintiff's harm or is the defendant a cause of the plaintiff's harm?" Crowe, supra at 920.
An alternative method for determining cause in fact, which is generally used when multiple causes are present, is the "substantial factor" test. Fowler, supra. Under this test, cause in fact is found to exist when the defendant's conduct was a "substantial factor" in bringing about plaintiff's harm. Dixie Drive It Yourself System v. American Beverage Co., 242 La. 471, 137 So.2d 298 (1962). Under either method, it is irrelevant in determining cause in fact whether the defendant's actions were "lawful, unlawful, intentional, unintentional, negligent or non-negligent." Green, The Causal Relation Issue in Negligence Law, 60 Mich.L.Rev. 543, 549 (1962). Rather, the cause in fact inquiry is a neutral one, free of the entanglements of policy considerations — morality, culpability or responsibility — involved in the duty-risk analysis. Shelton v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 334 So.2d 406, 409 (La.1976).
We recognized the very limited scope of the cause in fact inquiry in Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., 260 La. 542, 256 So.2d 620 (1972). There, we held that to the extent the defendant's actions had something to do with the injury the plaintiff sustained, the test of a factual, causal relationship is met. 256 So.2d at 622. Applying these principles to the instant case, although the cause in fact determination is not without difficulty, we cannot find that the court of appeal erred in affirming the trial court's finding that Sheriff Foti's alleged negligence in hiring, training and/or commissioning Benoit as a deputy had something to do with — was a cause in fact of — plaintiff's injuries.
Both lower courts found that Benoit lacked basic qualifications for commissioning as a law enforcement officer and that his training, especially in the use of firearms, was inadequate. More probably than not, this accident would not have happened if Benoit had possessed the basic qualifications of education, experience, intelligence and reliability, and if he had been adequately trained in the safe, responsible use of firearms.
DUTY
Duty is a question of law. Simply put, the inquiry is whether the plaintiff has any law — statutory or jurisprudential — to support his claim. Green, The Causal Relation Issue in Negligence Law, 60 Mich. L.Rev. 543, 562-63 (1962). Answering this inquiry in the affirmative, the trial court found that " 'Sheriff Foti has a. duty of extraordinary care to see to it that his deputies are properly trained in the use of a dangerous instrumentality.' " 574 So.2d at 1261. The trial court further found that " 'the trusting public, who permits Sheriff Foti to hire his deputies has a right to expect that they will be well trained and fully qualified in the proper and proficient use of firearms. The plaintiffs as part of that public are beneficiaries of that trust.' " Id. at 1263.
Agreeing with the trial court and expanding on the duty, the court of appeal stated:
Sheriff Foti has the obligation to ensure that those who are commissioned as deputy sheriffs have sufficient training, most particularly in the area of the use of firearms.
The law is clear that a loaded gun is a dangerous instrument and imposes a duty of care on those who have control of it. Webb v. Smith, 555 So.2d 556, 558 (La.App. 4th Cir.1989); Tolleson v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 449 So.2d 105 (La.App. 1st Cir.1984), writ denied, 450 So.2d 968 (La.1984). Likewise, Sheriff Foti has a duty to ensure that the people whom he commissions as deputy sheriffs are adequately trained in the use and handling of firearms.
574 So.2d at 1263. (emphasis added).
Both the court of appeal and the trial court assumed that there exists under Louisiana law a cognizable wrong for negligent hiring of a deputy. In making this determination, the lower courts relied on the line of cases setting forth the well-settled rule that a loaded gun is a dangerous instrumentality and imposing on those in control of such weapons a duty of extraordinary care. Valence v. State, 280 So.2d 651 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ refused, 282 So.2d 517 (La.1973); Cathey v. Bernard, 467 So.2d 9 (La.App. 1st Cir.1985); Tolleson, supra; Webb, supra. From this well-settled rule, the lower courts made the quantum leap that Sheriff Foti likewise has an "extraordinary duty" to ensure the people he commissions as deputies are qualified and adequately trained in the use of firearms.
A similar attempt to impose an "extraordinary duty" on an employer for its employee's negligent handling of a firearm was rejected in Schaeffer v. Duvall, 421 So.2d 262 (La.App. 4th Cir.1982), writ denied, 427 So.2d 1209 (La.1983). In Duvall, the plaintiff, who was injured by an off-duty security guard, sued the guard's employer alleging the employer had an "extraordinary duty" to screen, train and supervise its guard as the employer had placed a dangerous instrumentality — a loaded gun — into the hands of its guard. Thus, the plaintiff contended that the employer should be strictly liable under Civil Code Article 2317 for its "failure to prevent the person for whom he is responsible from causing such unreasonable risk of injuries to others." LSA-C.C. Art. 2317. Rejecting this contention, the Fourth Circuit found that the plaintiff's reliance on Article 2317 was misplaced because at the time of the accidental shooting the employee was far removed from his employer's control. We find the reasoning in Schaeffer, supra, convincing and reject the lower courts' implication that Sheriff Foti's duty was an "extraordinary" one under Article 2317.
As noted previously, courts in other jurisdictions have concluded that a govern mental employer has a duty to exercise reasonable care in hiring and training police officers, a duty common to all employers. Governmental employers who negligently either hire, commission, train or retain an incompetent or unfit deputy may be liable to a third party injured by the employee's negligence.
Louisiana courts first recognized this duty of an employer to exercise reasonable care in hiring employees who in the performance of their duties are likely to subject third parties to serious risk of harm in Lou-Con, Inc. v. Gulf Building Services, Inc., 287 So.2d 192 (La.App. 4th Cir.1973), writ denied, 290 So.2d 899 and 901 (La.1974). Cf. Morse v. Jones, 223 La. 212, 65 So.2d 317, 320 (1953) (finding that employer had no duty to investigate employee's background); See also Smith v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc., 540 So.2d 363 (La.App. 1st Cir.1989) (holding an employer liable for failure to exercise reasonable care in hiring and retaining employees it sends into customers' homes). We now expressly recognize the tort of negligent hiring as cognizable under Louisiana fault principles embodied in LSA-C.C. Art. 2315.
Our conclusion that Sheriff Foti had a duty to exercise reasonable care in hiring, commissioning and training Benoit, however, is only the initial step of the duty-risk analysis. As noted, a fundamental flaw in the court of appeal's analysis is that it stops at this point, leaving the more difficult legal causation questions unanswered; as the dissent aptly observed, "[t]he legal causation issue is not directly addressed." 574 So.2d at 1264. This flaw illustrates a common confusion, which we discussed in Fowler v. Roberts, 556 So.2d 1, 6 (La.1989), between the duty inquiry and the scope of protection (or scope of liability) inquiry. While the former questions the existence of a duty, the latter assumes a duty exists and questions whether the injury the plaintiff suffered is one of the risks encompassed by the rule of law that imposed the duty. Id. As our resolution of the scope of protection issue below is dispositive of this case, we pretermit the breach of duty analysis that is usually done at this point.
SCOPE OF PROTECTION OF DUTY
The most critical issue in the instant case is whether the injury plaintiff sustained was within the contemplation of the duty discussed above. There is no "rule" for determining the scope of the duty. Regardless if stated in terms of proximate cause, legal cause, or duty, the scope of the duty inquiry is ultimately a question of policy as to whether the particular risk falls within the scope of the duty. Edwards v. State, 556 So.2d 644, 648-49 (La.App. 2d Cir.1990). In making this policy determination, this court has previously quoted the following language from Malone, Ruminations on Cause-In-Fact, 9 Stan-L.Rev. 60, 73 (1956), which is worthy of repetition.
All rules of conduct, irrespective of whether they are the product of a legislature or are a part of the fabric of the court-made law of negligence, exist for purposes. They are designed to protect some persons under some circumstances against some risks. Seldom does a rule protect every victim against every risk that may befall him, merely because it is shown that the violation of the rule played a part in producing the injury. The task of defining the proper reach or thrust of a rule in its policy aspects is one that must be undertaken by the court in each case as it arises. How appropriate is the rule to the facts of this controversy? This is a question that the court cannot escape.
Gresham v. Davenport, 537 So.2d 1144, 1147 (La.1989) (quoting Malone, supra) (emphasis in original). In short, the scope of protection inquiry asks "whether the enunciated rule or principle of law extends to or is intended to protect this plaintiff from this type of harm arising in this manner." Crowe, supra at 906 (emphasis in original).
Generally, the scope of protection inquiry becomes significant in "fact-sensitive" cases in which a limitation of the "but for" consequences of the defendant's substandard conduct is warranted. Fowler, 556 So.2d at 6. These cases require logic, reasoning and policy decisions be employed to determine whether liability should be imposed under the particular factual circumstances presented. This is such a case. Particularly, the court of appeal's "but for" conclusion is that had Benoit not been commissioned as a deputy he would not have been carrying the gun that caused plaintiff's injuries. Roberts, 574 So.2d at 1263.
In determining the limitation to be placed on liability for a defendant's substandard conduct — i.e., whether there is a duty-risk relationship — we have found the proper inquiry to be how easily the risk of injury to plaintiff can be associated with the duty sought to be enforced. Hill, supra. Restated, the ease of association inquiry is simply: "How easily does one associate the plaintiff's complained-of harm with the defendant's conduct? . Although ease of association encompasses the idea of foreseeability, it is not based on foreseeability alone." Crowe, supra at 907. Absent an ease of association between the duty breached and the damages sustained, we have found legal fault lacking. Hill, supra; Sibley v. Gifford Hill and Co., Inc., 475 So.2d 315, 319 (La.1985); See also Williams v. Southfield School, Inc., 494 So.2d 1339, 1342 (La.App. 2d Cir.1986).
In the instant case, we find the ease of association between Sheriff Foti's alleged negligence in hiring, commissioning and inadequately training Benoit and the risk of injury to this plaintiff under the circumstances and in the manner the injury occurred is, at best, attenuated. Particularly, enforcement of Sheriff Foti's duty is attenuated by several factors. First, Sheriff Foti had no requirement that Benoit carry a gun on or off duty, although carrying a gun off duty by deputies was, in general, authorized and encouraged. Second, Be-noit's actions in carrying a gun on the day of the accident were in violation of Sheriff Foti's written regulation prohibiting carrying firearms while drinking. Finally, Be-noit's actions in engaging in horseplay with a loaded gun while intoxicated were in violation of common sense. In spite of Be-noit's lack of basic qualifications and inadequate training, nothing in his employment record indicated any likelihood that he would engage in such foolhardy conduct. In sum, we find foreseeability lacking, as "we do not believe that [the sheriff] can be expected to foresee that one of his officers would violate, not only the . regulation [regarding the handling of firearms while intoxicated], but also elementary standards of conduct relative to the use of firearms which are within the common knowledge and experience of everyone." Martin v. Gariotte, 270 So.2d 252, 254-55 (La.App. 1st Cir.1972), writ refused, 272 So.2d 376 (La.1973).
The court of appeal's holding implies that simply commissioning an inadequately trained deputy is negligence per se or that an inadequately trained deputy is a dangerous instrumentality. We reject that analysis as unsound. Hill, supra. Our law only prohibits conduct that creates an ambit of unreasonable risk of harm to others. Despite our finding above that Sheriff Foti had a duty not to commission inadequately trained deputies, the breach of that duty does not ipso facto give rise to liability. "Although [Sheriff Foti] would owe a duty to protect certain persons under certain circumstances from this risk, [he] is not an insurer against every risk of harm which is encountered in connection with [a negligently hired deputy]." Hill, 256 So.2d at 622.
As in Hill, supra, we are presented in this case with a combination of causes causing injury. While plaintiff's injuries may have been caused in part by Sheriff Foti's alleged failure to adequately train Benoit in the use of firearms, another cause was Benoit's own conduct in engaging in horseplay with a loaded gun while intoxicated. When, as in this case, a combination of causes exists, we have employed the following approach for defining the scope of protection:
The keys for the solution of the issue of responsibility when there is more than one cause-in-fact of damages are (1) a determination of the exact risk or risks anticipated by imposition of the legal duty which has been breached and (2) the legal or policy considerations which grant excuses from certain circumstances which follow an act of negligence. This requires, under the facts and the law of each case and the attendant exigencies, a jurisprudential determination which will implement and make effective our broad codal provisions concerning those who should respond in damages for their faults.
Fowler, 556 So.2d at 9 (quoting Pierre v. Allstate Insurance Co., 257 La. 471, 499, 242 So.2d 821, 831 (1970)).
We noted previously that in determining the exact risks anticipated by the imposition of the duty to use care in employing others, other courts have generally confined this duty to cases where there is a connection between the employment and the plaintiff, that is, where the plaintiff met the employee as a result of the employment and the employer would receive some benefit from the meeting had the wrongful act not occurred.
These factors are lacking in this case. Plaintiff met Benoit in a purely personal context, wholly unrelated to Benoit's employment. While it is suggested that Sheriff Poti derived some potential benefit from Benoit's choice to arm himself, as discussed above, we reject that suggestion. See Fitzgerald, supra. Thus, application of these factors reveals that the record is totally devoid of any connection between the plaintiff and Benoit's employment.
After carefully delineating the duty, it is evident that the primary purpose for imposing the duty to exercise reasonable care in hiring, commissioning and training deputies is to ensure effective and efficient law enforcement, and also to protect the public from injury caused by a deputy's negligent use of firearms while engaged in his law enforcement duties. The risk that a deputy while off duty and under no requirement to carry a gun would engage in horseplay with a loaded revolver while intoxicated, an action in violation of the Sheriff's regulations, and cause injury to plaintiff is clearly outside the ambit of protection contemplated by the imposition of that duty.
Accordingly, we find that the court of appeal erred in affirming the trial court's finding of liability on the part of Sheriff Foti. The judgment of the district court as affirmed by the court of appeal is reversed in so far as it finds Sheriff Foti liable, and the demands of plaintiff and intervenors against the sheriff are rejected.
REVERSED IN PART AND RENDERED.
CALOGERO, C.J., and WATSON and DENNIS, JJ., dissent and assign reasons.
. Before trial, the City of New Orleans and the State of Louisiana were dismissed. Also, Southern went bankrupt and the Insurance Guaranty Association assumed the defense on behalf of Southern and the Sheriffs Office.
. Judge Plotkin disagreed with the finding of liability based on the direct negligence of the sheriff, but would have found the sheriff vicariously liable under master-servant principles. He considered the amount of damages awarded inadequate.
. Plaintiffs writ application seeking an increase in damages was denied. Roberts v. Benoit, 575 So.2d 828 (La.1991). Neither Benoit or Insurance Guaranty Association applied for writs, and the judgment is final and definitive as to those defendants.
. Based on the evidence presented, the trial court concluded that Benoit was unquestionably intoxicated at the time of the accident.
. The sheriff also urges in the alternative that plaintiff was comparatively negligent and that the amount of damages is excessive. Since we find the sheriff is not liable, it is unnecessary to address those issues.
. The term "deputy" as used herein refers to any law enforcement officer and the term "municipal" refers to any governmental employer. Negligent "hiring" refers to hiring, training and retention of employees,
. We add, however, that there is substantial evidence supporting the lower courts' findings of breach of duty. Benoit lacked basic qualifications for commissioning as a deputy sheriff and his training was inadequate for that position, even though his regular duties did not encompass the usual full gamut of law enforcement duties.