Carter v. Reynolds
815 A.2d 460 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer is vicariously liable for an employee's negligence during a commute under the 'required-vehicle' exception to the 'going and coming' rule when the employer requires the employee to use a personal vehicle for work-related duties. This requirement establishes sufficient employer control over the commute and provides a benefit to the employer, bringing the travel within the scope of employment.
Facts:
- The accounting firm, Stevens, Fluhr, Chismar, Alvino & Sehechter, CPA (the firm), employed Alice Reynolds as a part-time employee.
- Reynolds's job required her to work both at the firm's main office and at various client locations, spending 25-30% of her time at client sites.
- The firm required Reynolds to use her personal automobile for these client visits and reimbursed her for business mileage.
- On January 15, 1997, Reynolds worked the morning at the firm's office and then drove her personal car to a client's location in Deal for the afternoon.
- At approximately 4:29 p.m., while driving her personal vehicle directly from the client's location in Deal toward her home, Reynolds struck and injured David Carter.
Procedural Posture:
- David Carter filed a negligence action against Alice Reynolds in the trial court.
- Carter later filed an amended complaint adding the firm as a defendant, alleging vicarious liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
- The firm's initial motion for summary judgment was granted by the trial court.
- On Carter's motion for reconsideration, the trial court reversed its decision and granted partial summary judgment in favor of Carter, finding the firm vicariously liable.
- The firm was granted leave to appeal the interlocutory order to the Appellate Division.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's order granting partial summary judgment to Carter.
- The Supreme Court of New Jersey granted the firm's motion for leave to 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 'required-vehicle' exception to the 'going and coming' rule apply to hold an employer vicariously liable for an employee's negligence when the employee, who is required to use her personal vehicle for off-site client visits, has an accident while driving home from a client's location?
Opinions:
Majority - Long, J.
Yes, the 'required-vehicle' exception to the 'going and coming' rule applies to hold the employer vicariously liable. Ordinarily, an employer is not liable for an employee's negligence during their commute, but an exception exists when the employer requires the employee to use their personal vehicle for the employer's benefit. Here, the firm's requirement that Reynolds use her car for client visits conferred a benefit on the firm (a mobile workforce without the cost of company cars) and exercised control over her commute by foreclosing other transportation options. Because the travel served this dual purpose for both the employee and the employer, her trip home from the client's location fell within the scope of her employment, making the firm liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
Concurring - LaVecchia, J.
Yes, the employer is liable on the narrow facts of this case. The holding is correct because this was not a typical commute from a regular worksite; it was a return journey from an assigned off-site work duty where the employer required the use of the vehicle. This concurrence is written to emphasize the narrowness of the holding and to caution against a broad interpretation where any employee who might occasionally use their personal vehicle for work would subject their employer to liability for every commute. Such a sweeping application of the required-vehicle exception is not established by this decision and would require careful consideration of societal costs and benefits.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the 'required-vehicle' exception to the 'going and coming' rule in New Jersey, broadening the scope of employer vicarious liability for commuting accidents. By focusing on the employer's control (mandating a car) and benefit (having a mobile employee), the court shifts the analysis away from whether the employee was performing a specific task at the moment of the tort. This precedent makes it more likely that employers will be held liable for the negligence of employees who must use their own vehicles for their jobs, potentially impacting insurance requirements and employment policies for companies with mobile workforces.
