Skip to main content

Vicarious Liability & Company Cars: Minimal vs. Substantial Deviation


Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. Dept. of Transp. - Fifth District Court of Appeal, CA


Facts: Halliburton provided Troy Martinez with a company vehicle that he was to use in the course of his employment.  After Martinez had completed work one day, he drove to Bakersfield to purchase a car for his wife.  Although Martinez had traveled to Bakersfield in the past for work, this trip was not for any work related purpose.  After leaving the dealership, Martinez hit a car, injuring six of the plaintiffs in this suit.  The plaintiffs sued Halliburton, Martinez, and others.

The trial court granted Halliburton's motion for summary judgment holding Halliburton could not be held to be vicariously liable for plaintiffs' injuries.  The Court of Appeal affirmed.

Holding: The Court held that even though Martinez was driving a company vehicle when the accident occurred and had traveled to Bakersfield previously for work, the trip was "entirely personal" and was not undertaken for the benefit of Halliburton.  Parmount to the Court's holding was the fact that Martinez was not performing services or running any errands for Halliburton on this particular trip, nor was his supervisor aware of the trip until after the accident occurred.  Consequently, Halliburton could not have assumed the risk of a vehicular accident during Martinez's trip, nor was such a risk of an accident inherent in, typical of, or broadly incidental to Halliburton's enterprise.

The Court relied on a prior case, Moradi v. Marsh USA, Inc., to differentiate its holding in the present case.  In Moradi, an employee was commuting home from work in her personal vehicle and made a stop for yogurt during which she hit a motorcyclist.  That court held that the employee was acting within the scope of her employment as she often had to use her personal vehicle for company business and her employer derived a benefit from that.  Consequently, that court held that the employee only made a "minimal deviation" from her commute on her way home from work, thus there was sufficient basis to hold the employer vicariously liable for the employee's purported negligent acts.  However, when an employee deviates substantially from his normal commute and the employer derives no incidental benefit, as in the present case, the employer cannot be vicariously liable for the damages caused by its employee.  Therefore, based upon these facts, Halliburton could not be held vicariously liable for the damages caused by its employee.

Judgment: The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Halliburton.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Hill

Date:  October 1, 2013

Opinion:  http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1645908.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more