Courtless v. Jolliffe, 507 S.E.2d 136

Supreme Court of West Virginia

1998

Chapter

13

Title

Vicarious Liability

Page

545

Topic

Employer-Employee Relationship

Quick Notes

A guy going to work hits and injuries another.  Court is trying to determine if the going and coming rule applies. 

Issue

o         Whether Mr. Jolliffe was acting within the scope of his employment at the time to the collision that caused Bobbie Courtless injuries?  Probably, since the case was remanded.

Procedure

Trial

o         Trial court granted motion of summary judgment, finding that the evidence did not support an exception to the coming and going rule.

Supreme

o         Reversed and Remanded.

Facts

Reason

Rules

o         Pl - Courtless

o         Df - Jolliffe

What happened?

o         On May 16, 1995, Bobby Courtless, while riding his bicycle, was struck by a vehicle driven by David Clyde Jolliffe.

o         Bobby was rendered permanently disabled due to the injuries sustained in that accident and became a paraplegic.

o         Mr. Jolliffe was employed by Princess and was en route to work at the time of the accident.

o         While traveling from his home to the Princess mine site, Mr. Jolliffe had stopped to buy shocks for his vehicle.

o         The Appellants filed a civil action against both Mr. Jolliffe and Princess, alleging that Princess was liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

Truck Compensation

o         Princess paid Mr. Jolliffe $400 monthly, the amount of the monthly payment on the truck.

o         Princess also paid maintenance and repair costs on Mr. Jolliffes truck, and Mr. Jolliffe had free use of gasoline from the Princess  gas tanks.

o         In exchange, Mr. Jolliffe used the vehicle at the Princess sites on a daily basis

Princess Motion For Summary Judgment

o         Princess filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that Mr. Jolliffe was not acting within the scope of his employment.

Trial Court Granted SJ

o         Trial court granted motion of summary judgment, finding that the evidence did not support an exception to the coming and going rule.

Rule

o         A rule in W.VA is that if it can be shown that an individual is an agent and if he is acting within the scope of his employment when he commits a tort, then the principal is liable for the tort as well as the agent."

Application

o         An agent or employee can be held personally liable for his own torts against third parties and this personal liability if it is independent of his agency or employee relationship. 

o         Of course, if he is acting within the scope of his employment, then his principal or employer may also be held liable.

In Griffith.

o         The universally recognized rule is that an employer is liable to a third person for any injury to his person or property which results proximately from tortious conduct of an employee acting within the scope of his employment.

o         The negligent or tortious act may be imputed to the employer if the act of the employee was done in accordance with the expressed or implied authority of the employer.

Scope of Employment

o         Scope of employment is a relative term and requires

1.       A consideration of surrounding circumstances including the character of the employment,

2.       the nature of the wrongful deed,

3.       the time and place of its commission and the purpose of the act.

Going and Coming Rule

o         Essentially declares that the doctrine of respondeat superior is not typically applicable while the employee is coming or going to work.

o         It traditionally applies where the ONLY evidence linking the employer to the accident was the fact that the employee was coming or going to work.

o         No vicarious liability on the party of the employer when the employee is just coming or going to work.

Special Errand Exception

o         When an employee, having identifiable time and space limits on his employment, makes an off-premises journey which would normally not be covered under the usual going and coming rule, the journey may be brought within the course of employment by the fact that the trouble and time of making the journey, or the special inconvenience, hazard, or urgency of making it in the particular circumstances, is itself sufficiently substantial to be viewed as an integral part of the service itself.

o         Exceptions

o        Special Hazards Dangerous over and above what a person would normally be found on a road way.  A job that makes you to take a dangerous and windy road.

o        Employer Compensates Employee for Time and Travel.

o        Dual Purpose Where the employee, in addition to traveling to and from the employers worksite, also performs some additional service for the employer not common to an ordinary commute to work.  (i.e., if you run an errand for your boss.

Outcome

o         The granting of summary judgment prematurely discontinued the gathering process.

o         Lower court erred in granting summary judgment.

o         Case remanded for further proceedings.

Class Notes

Going and Coming Rule

o         No vicarious liability on the part of the employer when the employee is just coming or going to work.

Special Errands Rule

o        When an employee makes an off-premises journey, the journey may be brought within the course of employment by the fact that the trouble and time of making the journey, of the special inconvenience, hazard, or urgency of making it in the particular circumstance, is itself sufficiently substantial to be viewed as an integral part of the service itself.

Exceptions

o         Special Hazards

o        Dangerous over and above what a person would normally be found on a road way.  A job that makes you to take a dangerous and windy road.

o         Employer Compensates Employee for Time and Travel.

o         Dual Purpose

o        Where the employee, in addition to traveling to and from the employers worksite, also performs some additional service for the employer not common to an ordinary commute to work.  (i.e., if you run an errand for your boss).