Blog

Employer Liability for Motor Vehicle Accidents: Exceptions to the ExceptionsUnder the doctrine of respondeat superior, employers are generally held liable for the negligence of their employees. One common example of this is motor vehicle accidents caused by employees. For example, if a long haul truck driver falls asleep behind the wheel and causes an accident, the victims of that accident would be able to target the truck driver’s employer for compensation for their injuries and suffering.

Driving doesn’t necessarily have to be in the employee’s job description for respondeat superior to apply. For example, if an executive sends his personal assistant to pick up a colleague at the airport, and the assistant causes an accident, the company would be liable. This is true even if the assistant was driving their own vehicle—not a company vehicle—at the time of the accident.

For respondeat superior to apply, what matters is that the employee is driving as part of the scope of their employment. Of course, there are exceptions to this—and exceptions to the exceptions, as one recent California Court of Appeal ruling shows.

Morales-Simental v. Genentech, Inc. Upholds Going and Coming Rule

A few months ago, the California Court of Appeal considered a case involving one notable exception to employer liability for employees’ motor vehicle accidents: the going and coming rule. This rule states that although commuting to and from work is obviously a prerequisite for getting a job done, an employee is generally outside their scope of employment during their commute. Therefore, an employer is typically not liable for any accidents that an employee may cause while going to or coming from work.

However, there is an exception to the going and coming rule, namely the special errand exception. This exception puts liability back on the employer for accidents that an employee may cause while running a special errand for their employer, such as dropping petty cash at the bank on the way home from work. The special errand exception serves to prevent employers from co-opting employees’ commutes as a way to complete errands without risking liability for accidents.

In the case of Morales-Simental v. Genentech, Inc., the plaintiffs attempted to recover damages from Genentech using the special errand exception.

The accident in question took place when Genentech employee Vincent Inte Ong was on his way to work on his day off. A passenger in the car that Ong hit, Marisol Morales, was killed in the accident. The plaintiffs argued that Genentech should be liable for the accident under the special errand exception. However, the trial court disagreed and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, on the grounds that, as per the going and coming rule, Ong was outside his scope of employment at the time of the accident.

The plaintiffs appealed the decision because they believed that there were triable issues of material fact related to whether or not Ong was on a special errand for his employer at the time of the accident. The defense presented evidence showing that Genentech had not requested that Ong come to work that day or expected him to do so as part of his regular duties. Instead, Ong had come in for his own convenience. The plaintiffs countered by arguing that, since Ong was a lead technician at Genentech, he could actually direct himself to come in to work, and this would qualify as a special errand.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeals rejected the plaintiffs’ argument, declining to accept what would have been a broad exception to the special errand rule. The Court found that despite his position as a supervisor, Ong could not order himself to perform a special errand on his employer’s behalf. As there was no evidence that his employer had asked him to come to work, Genentech could not be liable for the plaintiffs’ damages.

Had the court found in the plaintiffs’ favor, it would have set a problematic precedent. If employees could order themselves to complete special errands for their employers at any time, employers would potentially become liable for all kinds of off-shift employee driving activities that were actually outside the employer’s control.

This case serves as a reminder that many complex issues may arise when attempting to trigger employer liability for a motor vehicle accident. A thorough understanding of the scope of respondeat superior and of various exceptions is necessary to avoid missteps.