Christensen v. Swenson
874 P.2d 125 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer may be vicariously liable for an employee's tort committed off-premises during a short, paid break if the employee's activity is so closely connected with and incidental to their employment that it can be considered a method of carrying out the objectives of the employment.
Facts:
- Burns International Security Services provided security for the Geneva Steel Plant and employed Gloria Swenson as a security guard.
- Swenson was assigned to work an eight-hour continuous shift at Gate 4, with no scheduled breaks.
- Burns permitted employees to take ten- to fifteen-minute unscheduled, paid breaks for lunch and restroom use.
- The Frontier Cafe, located 150-250 yards across the street, was the sole source of non-vending machine food accessible within the short break time, and its menu was posted at Swenson's guard station.
- On July 26, 1988, during a lull in traffic, Swenson telephoned a soup order to the Frontier Cafe.
- She then drove her personal automobile to the cafe to pick up the soup, intending to return immediately to her post to eat.
- On her return trip from the cafe, Swenson's vehicle collided with a motorcycle carrying Jeff Christensen and Kyle James Fausett at a public intersection just outside the Geneva property, injuring both men.
Procedural Posture:
- Jeff Christensen and Kyle James Fausett filed a negligence action against Gloria Swenson and Burns International Security Services in a Utah state trial court.
- Burns moved for summary judgment, arguing it was not liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
- The trial court granted Burns' motion for summary judgment.
- Christensen and Fausett, as appellants, appealed the decision to the Utah Court of Appeals.
- The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Burns, the appellee.
- Christensen and Fausett petitioned the Utah Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an employer entitled to summary judgment on the issue of respondeat superior when its employee, working a continuous shift with short, paid breaks, is involved in a car accident off-premises while driving to the only nearby restaurant to obtain food?
Opinions:
Majority - Durham, Justice
No. Summary judgment for the employer is inappropriate because reasonable minds could differ as to whether the employee was acting within the scope of her employment. To determine if an employee's conduct is within the scope of employment, courts apply the three-part Birkner test: (1) the conduct must be of the general kind the employee is hired to perform; (2) it must occur substantially within the hours and ordinary spatial boundaries of employment; and (3) it must be motivated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the employer's interest. Here, genuine issues of material fact exist for a jury on all three prongs. A jury could find that Swenson's trip served the employer's interest in projecting a security presence and was tacitly sanctioned; that the off-premises trip to the only accessible eatery was 'substantially within' the spatial boundaries of a job with continuous shifts and short breaks; and that her conduct was motivated in part to serve her employer by taking an efficient break to maintain productivity.
Concurring - Howe, Justice
Yes, I concur with the majority's conclusion. The court of appeals' concern about unduly expanding the scope of employment is addressed by a recognized exception to the general off-premises lunch rule. This exception applies when an employee, on paid time, rushes out for a 'lightning excursion for lunch' to conserve the employer's time and hurry back due to work pressures. Although this arises from workers' compensation law, the principle that such an effort is expended in the employer's interest is applicable here and supports the majority's reasoning.
Analysis:
This decision rejects a rigid, bright-line rule that an employee's conduct off the employer's premises is automatically outside the scope of employment. It emphasizes a flexible, fact-specific inquiry, making it more difficult for employers to obtain summary judgment in cases involving off-site employee actions during breaks that are closely tied to the conditions of employment. The case establishes that even seemingly personal acts, like getting lunch, can be considered within the scope of employment if they confer a benefit on the employer, such as enabling an employee to work a continuous shift efficiently. This places a greater burden on employers to define the boundaries of employment conduct clearly, especially for jobs with unconventional break structures.
Unlock the full brief for Christensen v. Swenson