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, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more