|
Sumrall v. Modern Alloys, Inc., 4/13/17 CA4/3
|
It’s hard not to appreciate the outcome of this case based on the questionable employment practice of Modern Alloys.
Campos was employed by Modern Alloys as a cement finisher. He was required to drive to the company’s yard at 8 a.m., pick up a truck and then drive equipment and other employees to the job site, where he would work from 9 to 5. He was not paid commute time from his home to the yard (that’s okay); nor was he paid for his commute time from the yard to the jobsite (that’s not okay). On his way driving from home to the yard one day, he hit a motorcyclist, and the motorcyclist sued the company. Modern Allows asked for summary judgment, asserting that the coming and going rule was a bar to recovery; plaintiff argued the “business errand” exception applied and the Campos was acting within the scope of employment at the time of the accident. The trial court threw the case out on summary judgment. Held: Reversed.
Ordinarily, an employee is considered outside the scope of employment while he/she is commuting. An exception to that is the “business errand” exception. That is normally a question of fact for the jury. In reversing summary judgment, the Court explained: “Here, it is undisputed that Campos was driving his own vehicle from his home to the Modern Alloys yard at the time of the collision. Thus, there is a reasonable inference that Campos was on a normal commute. However, it is also undisputed that Campos transported Modern Alloys’ vehicle, workers, and materials from its yard to the jobsite, and that Modern Alloys did not pay Campos until he reached the jobsite. Thus, there is a reasonable inference that Campos was also on a business errand for Modern Alloys’ benefit while commuting from his home to the yard.”
While there is no published case that resembles the facts of this case, the court noted that tort law is not static, each case is driven by its facts, and where plaintiff’s interests are entitled to protection, then the novelty of the case is not a bar to a remedy.
Typically, the business errand exception applies when there is an incidental benefit to the employer not common to the ordinary commute. One of the important factors in the court’s analysis of whether there was an “incidental benefit” was that Modern Alloy did not pay Campos for driving their truck and hauling their equipment and other employees from the yard to the jobsite. No kidding — An hour of driving a truck, equipment and employees from the yard to the jobsite is a HUGE incidental benefit. In fact, it was so important that if Modern Allow had paid Campos for his drive time from the yard to the jobsite, the Court didn’t think the business errand exception could apply.