Bussard v. Minimed, Inc.
105 Cal.App.4th 798, 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 675 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The 'going-and-coming' rule, which generally shields employers from liability for employee torts during their commute, does not apply when a work-related incident impairs an employee's faculties and makes their subsequent commute foreseeably dangerous to others.
Facts:
- Minimed, Inc. hired a pest control company to spray pesticide at its facility overnight.
- The following morning, Minimed employee Irma Hernandez arrived for work, noticed a strange smell, and by 10:00 a.m. felt ill with a headache, nausea, and chest tightness.
- At noon, Hernandez informed her supervisors that she was too ill to continue working and wanted to go home.
- After a supervisor inquired if she felt well enough to drive and Hernandez affirmed that she did, she left work.
- While driving home, Hernandez rear-ended a vehicle driven by Barbara Bussard, who was stopped at a red light.
- Hernandez later told the responding police officer that she had felt dizzy and lightheaded before the collision.
Procedural Posture:
- Barbara Bussard sued Irma Hernandez and her employer, Minimed, Inc., in a state trial court for negligence.
- Minimed filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing it could not be held vicariously liable due to the going-and-coming rule.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Minimed.
- Bussard, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the intermediate court of appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the going-and-coming rule shield an employer from vicarious liability for an employee's negligence when the employee becomes ill from a workplace condition, attempts to drive home, and causes an accident?
Opinions:
Majority - Rubin, J.
No. The going-and-coming rule does not bar a claim for vicarious liability when an employee becomes an 'instrumentality of danger' due to a work-related cause. The court reasoned that an employer is vicariously liable for risks that are inherent in or created by the enterprise under the doctrine of respondeat superior. When a workplace condition, such as exposure to pesticide fumes, causes an employee to become ill and impairs their ability to drive, a subsequent accident during the commute home is a foreseeable consequence of the business's operation. This situation creates an exception to the general going-and-coming rule, similar to cases where employers were held liable for accidents caused by employees who became intoxicated at work functions. The court concluded that as long as the risk is created within the scope of employment, the liability 'must follow the risk' until it dissipates, even if the injury occurs away from the workplace and after work hours.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies and expands the exceptions to the well-established going-and-coming rule. It establishes that an employer's potential vicarious liability for its employee's commute is not limited to situations of employer negligence (e.g., providing alcohol) but extends to any foreseeable risk created by the employment. By framing the issue around the 'work-spawned risk' rather than the commute itself, the decision broadens the scope of employment to follow an employee who has become a 'danger to others' because of a workplace event. This precedent makes it more difficult for employers to obtain summary judgment by simply invoking the going-and-coming rule in cases where an employee's impairment originates at the worksite.
Unlock the full brief for Bussard v. Minimed, Inc.