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

Breaking: Labor Secretary Rumored to Be Leaving Administration

A few hours ago, word leaked out that Labor Secretary Marty Walsh (“Walsh”) is in the midst of negotiations to head up the NHL Players Union and leave his position at the Labor Department. Walsh, who has served as the sole Labor Secretary under President Biden, has taken part in a labor renaissance of sorts as support for organized labor has increased during his term as Labor Secretary (although the number of workers that have joined a union over the past two years has not grown as mush as some expected.)  He has also overseen the ongoing negotiations with rail workers over a new contract, although that matter is still on shaky ground and playing out as we speak. As for who might step into the vacant Labor Secretary role, there are already rumblings that President Biden should nominate Deputy Labor Secretary Julie Su (a strong labor advocate) or even a progressive like Senator Bernie Sanders.  Until Walsh officially gives his notice, however, I would expect some/many potential...
Post a Comment
Read more

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie Vetoes Minimum Wage Hike

A few months ago, readers might remember that I pointed out that the New Jersey Legislature had voted to approve a minimum wage hike in the state .  Under the approved legislation, the minimum wage rate would rise to $10.10/hour in the next year and at least $15/hour over the next five.  (The current minimum wage rate in the state is $8.38/hour).  In that article, I had noted that the bill was then going to go before Governor Chris Christie for his approval or veto. As I had suggested previously, I thought that the Governor would likely veto the bill based upon his prior actions and comments on similar legislation.  Well, a few days ago, Governor Christie did just that and vetoed the bill on the grounds that it "would trigger an escalation of wages that will make doing business in New Jersey unfathomable."  Pointing to the increase in hourly minimum wage rates, the Governor referred to the bill as a "really radical increase."  (It is interesting to c...
Post a Comment
Read more