Louisiana House Bill HB324

Louisiana 2023 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/29/23
• Refer: 3/29/23
• Refer: 4/10/23

Caption

Provides relative to vicarious liability of an employer

Impact

The enactment of HB 324 could significantly alter the landscape of employer liability in Louisiana. By limiting the evidentiary scope when determining vicarious liability, the bill may provide greater protection for employers against claims stemming from employee actions. This could lead to a decrease in the number of lawsuits based on claims of negligent hiring or supervision, as these aspects would not be permissible in trial if the employer has accepted liability for their employee's actions. Consequently, this could also affect how businesses handle their training and hiring practices.

Summary

House Bill 324, introduced by Representative Davis, seeks to clarify the standards surrounding vicarious liability for employers in Louisiana. The proposed legislation enacts Code of Evidence Article 416, which stipulates that if an employer has accepted vicarious liability for the wrongful acts of an employee or agent, evidence of the employer's independent fault should not be admissible in legal proceedings. This includes claims of negligent hiring, training, retention, or entrustment related to the employee's conduct. The bill aims to streamline litigation by preventing the introduction of potentially prejudicial evidence that could influence jury decisions on an employer's liability.

Sentiment

The sentiment around HB 324 appears to be mixed. Proponents of the bill, typically from the business community, argue that it is necessary to protect employers from overly broad legal interpretations that could hold them accountable for employees' actions beyond the scope of their control. However, critics may view this legislation as potentially enabling negligent practices by discouraging thorough hiring and training processes, creating a risk to public safety and workplace standards.

Contention

Notable points of contention regarding HB 324 include fears that it could weaken accountability for employers. Opponents of the bill argue that allowing such limitations on the admissibility of evidence could embolden employers to overlook their responsibilities in ensuring a safe and properly-trained workforce. This contention reflects a broader debate about the balance between fostering a business-friendly legal environment and ensuring that adequate protections are in place for individuals potentially harmed by employer negligence.