Case Name: Herbert McGOWAN v. WARWICK CORPORATION and the City of New Orleans
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1997-03-12
Citations: 691 So. 2d 265
Docket Number: No. 96-CA-0851
Parties: Herbert McGOWAN v. WARWICK CORPORATION and the City of New Orleans.
Judges: Before CIACCIO, PLOTKIN and LANDRIEU, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 691
Pages: 265–267

Head Matter:
Herbert McGOWAN v. WARWICK CORPORATION and the City of New Orleans.
No. 96-CA-0851.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
March 12, 1997.
Nicolas Estiverne, Nicolas Estiverne & Associates, New Orleans, for Appellee.
Robert W. Mouton, Matthew K. Brown, Locke Pumess Rain Harrell, New Orleans, for appellant Warwick Corporation.
Before CIACCIO, PLOTKIN and LANDRIEU, JJ.

Opinion:
| LANDRIEU, Judge.
This case arises from a claim made by Herbert McGowan against his employer for McGowan's arrest and detention for allegedly robbing hotel guests at the Comfort Inn. The trial court awarded a default judgment in favor of McGowan and against his employer, the Warwick Corporation (Warwick), which was confirmed. We affirm.
The facts in the case are undisputed. McGowan was employed in housekeeping at the Comfort Inn hotel at 1513 Gravier Street on April 18, 1994, when he delivered towels to a guest's room. When the guests discovered that money and a gun were missing from their room, they insisted that the hotel call the police. During the course of their investigation, the police questioned MeGow- an, and then arrested him and placed him in custody. He was released from Central Lock-Up six weeks later after the Warwick management notified the police that the gun had been found.
McGowen filed suit against the Warwick Corporation for false accusation, false imprisonment, mental distress, public embarrassment, and defamation. Warwick did not answer the petition for damages, and McGowan took a default 1 ¿judgment against Warwick which was subsequently confirmed. McGowan was awarded $5,000.00 for general damages and $990.00 in lost wages, both with interest.
Warwick timely appealed the default judgment and raised as its only assignment of error the following:
The trial court erred in permitting an employee of the Warwick Corporation to bring a tort action against Warwick for damages arising out of the employee's arrest (1) by the police, (2) at his place of employment and (3) in connection with events that allegedly occurred at his place of employment. (Emphasis added).
Warwick argues only that McGowan's exclusive remedy is under the Worker's Compensation Act and, consequently, the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction.
We disagree. McGowan's petition claims damages for false accusation, false imprisonment, public embarrassment, and defamation, none of which resulted in physical or mental injury as contemplated by the Act. McGowan's action, therefore, is in tort over which the district court had subject matter jurisdiction.
Because Warwick does not assign or brief as error insufficiency of the evidence presented at the confirmation of default hearing, that issue is not before us.
Accordingly, the trial court judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
PLOTKIN, J., dissents with written reasons.
. See La.Rev.Stat. 23:1021 etseq.