Courtless v. Jolliffe
507 S.E.2d 136, 203 W. Va. 258, 1998 W. Va. LEXIS 125 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Summary judgment is inappropriate on the issue of respondeat superior when a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether an employee was acting within the scope of employment. Such an issue may arise, creating an exception to the 'going and coming' rule, when an employer provides substantial financial support for the employee's vehicle and the employee is injured while performing an errand related to that vehicle during their commute.
Facts:
- David Clyde Jolliffe was an employee of Princess Beverly Coal Company (Princess).
- Jolliffe used his personal truck for company business on a daily basis at Princess's work sites.
- Princess paid Jolliffe $400 monthly for his truck, which was the amount of the vehicle's monthly payment.
- Princess also paid for the truck's maintenance and repair costs and allowed Jolliffe free use of gasoline from company tanks.
- On May 16, 1995, while driving from his home to the Princess mine site, Jolliffe stopped to buy shock absorbers for his truck.
- After this stop, Jolliffe's vehicle struck Bobby Thomas Courtless, who was riding his bicycle, rendering him a paraplegic.
Procedural Posture:
- Gladys Courtless, on behalf of Bobby Courtless, filed a civil action against David Jolliffe and Princess Beverly Coal Company in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County.
- Princess filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing Jolliffe was not acting within the scope of his employment.
- The circuit court stayed further discovery against Princess pending the deposition of Jolliffe.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Princess, finding no genuine issue of material fact.
- Courtless (Appellant) appealed the grant of summary judgment to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.
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 a genuine issue of material fact exist as to whether an employee was acting within the scope of his employment, precluding summary judgment, when he was involved in an accident while commuting to work after stopping to purchase parts for a vehicle whose payments, maintenance, and fuel were paid for by his employer?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A genuine issue of material fact does exist as to whether the employee was acting within the scope of his employment, and therefore the grant of summary judgment was improper. The doctrine of respondeat superior holds an employer liable for torts committed by an employee acting within the scope of employment. While the 'going and coming rule' generally shields employers from liability for an employee's commute, exceptions exist, such as when the travel confers a benefit to the employer beyond the mere act of commuting. In this case, Princess's substantial financial contributions to the vehicle (payments, maintenance, fuel) and Jolliffe's errand to purchase parts for that vehicle, which was used for company business, create a factual question for a jury as to whether he was acting within the scope of his employment. The lower court prematurely granted summary judgment, cutting off discovery needed to fully develop the facts required to clarify the application of the law, especially in an evolving area like the tort-based application of the going and coming rule.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces that the determination of 'scope of employment' is a highly fact-specific inquiry generally reserved for a jury, not for a judge on summary judgment. It signals the court's willingness to look beyond the traditional 'going and coming' rule when there is evidence of significant employer involvement in, and benefit from, an employee's commute. The ruling serves as a caution to trial courts against granting summary judgment prematurely, particularly in developing areas of law where a full factual record is essential for proper appellate review and the establishment of clear precedent. This strengthens the position of plaintiffs by ensuring they have a full opportunity through discovery to establish facts supporting vicarious liability.
