![]() The Court found that the minor stops for yogurt and to attend a yoga class did not change the "incidental benefit" to the employer of having the employee use his or her personal vehicle to travel to and from the office and other work-based destinations. ![]() What had never been decided before the Moradi case was whether the employer was liable to a third-party when the employee was required to drive a vehicle to and from work and an accident occurs during the commute while the employee was pursuing a personal matter. Now, there have been a number of cases in the workers' compensation area of the law holding employers liable for injuries to workers that occurred to and from work when the personal vehicle must be provided by the employee. The exception has been referred to as the "required-vehicle" exception. The inquiry was on whether there was some benefit derived by the employer. The courts held that the employment relationship was "suspended" from the time the employee leaves the workplace until he or she returns to the workplace and that while commuting, the employee is not rendering a service to the employer.īut, the courts also made an exception to this "going and coming" rule where the employees' use of his or her own car gives some incidental benefit to the employer. In these situations, employees were said to be outside of the course and scope of employment during their daily commute. Because accidents often happen when employees are en route to and from work, the courts had come up with the "going and coming" rule where employers were generally exempt from liability for negligence committed by their employees while on the way to and from work. It is the extension and exceptions to this rule that create issues such as in these two cases. ![]() This theory is well established and does not raise many eyebrows. The first is the theory of "respondeat superior," where employers are held liable for negligent acts of their employees that occur during the course and scope of their employment. There are some important maxims of law that were considered in the case. Moradi filed an action against the employee and against the employer. While making a left turn into a parking lot, the employee hit Mr. All three of her ultimate destinations were within two miles of her home in Woodland Hills. Her office was in Downtown Los Angeles and her home was in Woodland Hills, about 30 miles apart. At the end of her workday, she planned to stop on the way home for frozen yogurt and thereafter to attend a 6:00 p.m. When the program was over, she returned to the office. ![]() On the date of the incident, the employee used her personal vehicle to transport herself and co-employees to a company sponsored program. In the Moradi case, the employer required the employee to use her personal vehicle to travel to and from the office and make work related trips during the day. Indeed, she stopped for frozen yogurt and was on her way to take a yoga class, which admittedly are events that had nothing to do with the workplace, but employer liability was found to have arisen. Marsh USA, the Court of Appeal found that an employer, March USA, a very large insurance brokerage, was liable for injuries to a motorcyclist involved in a vehicle accident with an employee who was running personal errands on her way home from work. Each appears to reach a different result, but a distinction can be drawn from the facts of the two cases. ![]() One came from the Second District which governs a large part of Los Angeles and Ventura County, and a second came from the Fifth District and concerns events that occurred in Kern County. Two recent cases came from different districts of the Court of Appeal approximately two weeks apart from each other. While our practice generally stays away from employment law, two recent cases came to our attention and because a number of our clients either require their employees to use personal vehicles while conducting business, or actually provide company vehicles to their workers, we thought these issues were important enough to make sure that our clientele knew of their potential liability for their employees' actions even when off work. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |