Case Name: Kathleen AUSTEN v. Wallace SHERWOOD, Cavalier Insurance Company, Mississippi Press Register, Inc. and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1983-09-02
Citations: 446 So. 2d 274
Docket Number: No. 83-C-0655
Parties: Kathleen AUSTEN v. Wallace SHERWOOD, Cavalier Insurance Company, Mississippi Press Register, Inc. and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company.
Judges: LEMMON, J., dissents.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 446
Pages: 274–280

Head Matter:
Kathleen AUSTEN v. Wallace SHERWOOD, Cavalier Insurance Company, Mississippi Press Register, Inc. and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company.
No. 83-C-0655.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Sept. 2, 1983.
On Rehearing Feb. 27, 1984.
Rehearing Denied March 23, 1984.
Perrin C. Butler, Perrin Butler, Ltd., Leonard J. Cline, Metairie, for applicant.
Thomas M. Nosewicz, Madeleine Fischer, Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carr-ere & Denegre, David M. Cambre, Dillon & Cambre, New Orleans, for respondents.

Opinion:
BLANCHE, Justice.
Plaintiff Kathleen Austen filed suit against Wallace Sherwood and his automobile liability insurer, Cavalier Insurance Co., to recover damages she sustained when Sherwood rammed into the rear of her automobile as she waited at a traffic light on the Westbank Expressway in Jefferson Parish. After deposing Sherwood, the plaintiff joined as defendants Sherwood's employer, the Mississippi Press Register, and its liability insurer, Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., urging that the Register was liable for her injuries under the doctrine of respondeat superior because the accident occurred while Sherwood was acting in the course and scope of his employment.
The trial court rendered judgment for the plaintiff against all defendants for $116,059.39. The judgment was later amended as to Cavalier and Sherwood, limiting their liability to the $10,000 limit of Sherwood's automobile liability insurance policy. The trial court cast the Register and Liberty Mutual in judgment for the remainder, ruling that the accident had occurred while Sherwood had been acting in the course and scope of his employment. The court of appeal reversed, ruling that Sherwood had been "clearly on his own time" when the accident occurred. 425 So.2d 818 (La.App.1982).
In our opinion, Sherwood's activities at the time of the accident were not so closely connected in time, place, and causation with his duties as an employee of the newspaper that the Register and Liberty Mutual should be liable for the plaintiff's damages. Accordingly, we affirm.
Wallace Sherwood had been employed by the Mississippi Press Register out of Pas-cagoula, Mississippi since 1964. His primary job had been that of an "Advertising Accounts Executive," although he had also served as the "Arts Editor" due to his undergraduate background in the theatre. As the Arts Editor, Sherwood wrote a column for the paper entitled "Footlights and Frescoes", in which he reviewed movies, plays, concerts and other artistic functions over the Gulf-coast area of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. Pursuant to his position as an advertising executive, Sherwood received a monthly automobile allowance.
On April 11, 1978, the date of the accident, Sherwood worked his regular job at the Register in Pascagoula until 5:00 p.m. He then left for New Orleans in order to attend the Louis Armstrong Concert at the Jazz and Heritage Festival. Our review of the record shows that Sherwood had written a column on the Festival before April ll. He attended the Festival at the behest of Ann Zimmerman, publicity director for the Festival, who had supplied a press pass for the event.
On the date of the accident, Sherwood charged $9.90 worth of gasoline to his line of credit supplied by the paper. He attended the concert with a friend who lived in New Orleans and consumed several beers while covering the event. After the concert, Sherwood expressed some concern as to whether he should try to drive back to Pascagoula, and his friend suggested that the wiser course might be for Sherwood to spend the night with him in New Orleans, then drive back early in the morning. Sherwood accepted the offer, and the accident occurred while the two were on their way to the friend's house.
The Register has urged that Sherwood was paid only as an advertising executive and was not paid specifically for writing the column. Moreover, asserts the Register, Sherwood attended the concert for his own benefit and enjoyment and, at any rate, his diversion to the house of a friend removed him from the course and scope of his employment were we to nevertheless find that he had attended the Festival pursuant to his employment with the Register. In our view, the evidence preponderates in favor of the conclusion that Sherwood's attendance at the concert was for his own benefit and enjoyment and that it in no way benefited his employer, nor was it related to the service of his employer. Accordingly, we need not consider whether Sherwood's diversion to the house of a friend removed him from the course and scope of his employment or whether Sherwood's activities fell within the "going and coming" or "specific errand" rules.
Sherwood testified at trial that he had worked his regular job in advertising on the date of the accident during his regular hours from 8:30 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. He testified further that no one from the Register had requested or ordered that he attend the Festival that evening; in fact, Sherwood repeatedly acknowledged that he had attended the concert that evening for his own enjoyment because Ann Zimmerman was "nice enough to ask me." Although Sherwood did have some latitude in events he covered in his column "Footlights and Frescoes," he had written a piece on the Festival before he attended the concert on the date of the accident. At trial, Sherwood testified repeatedly that he had attended the Festival that night strictly because he "wanted to," and we do not find mere speculation that Sherwood's attendance at the concert might have supplied fodder for some future column sufficient to support a legal conclusion that Sherwood was acting for his employer by driving to New Orleans from Pascagoula in order to attend the cultural event. There is simply not enough evidence in the record to place Sherwood's activities in attending the Festival on the date in question within the course and scope of his employment with the Register.
DECREE
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the court of appeal is affirmed.
LEMMON, J., dissents.
DENNIS, J., dissents with reasons.
. Sherwood received the small gasoline allowance ($10 per week) in lieu of a company car. Because of his dwarfism, Sherwood was limited to automobile travel in his own specially-equipped vehicle. Other advertising executives had the use of company cars. It is uncontro-verted that the stipend to Sherwood was in no way related to his activities as the "Arts Editor."
. The article appeared the day after the accident, April 12. No further articles were written about the concert after Sherwood returned to Pascagoula.
. Apparently, Sherwood had attended the Festival the weekend before the accident and was invited back by Zimmerman as a "friend."
. The court of appeal opinion held that Sherwood's attendance at the concert was for his personal enjoyment and not pursuant to his employment with the Register. 425 So.2d at 819-20. However, the court also remarked, in dictum, that even if Sherwood had attended the concert in the course of his employment, his diversion to the house of a friend removed him from the scope of his employment because "[t]he negligent acts of an employee on his way to or from work are not generally imputable to an employer," citing Boudreaux v. Yancey, 319 So.2d 806 (La.App. 1st Cir.1975). Id. The plaintiff has argued extensively in brief that the "coming and going" rule should not apply and suggests that Sherwood was on a "specific errand" for the Register, an exception to the "coming and going" rule. As noted supra and discussed infra, we find such a discussion unnecessary since, in our view, Sherwood's trip to New Orleans and attendance at the Festival was purely personal and wholly without the course and scope of his employment.