Craig v. Gentry
792 S.W.2d 77, 1990 Tenn. App. LEXIS 98 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employee's deviation from a business errand to address a sudden mechanical problem with the vehicle necessary for the errand does not automatically constitute a personal mission that severs the employer's vicarious liability.
Facts:
- Deborah F. Gentry was an employee of Williams Generics.
- During work hours, Gentry left her workplace to purchase a gift for her boss's daughter and to make a bank deposit for the company, using her personal vehicle.
- After purchasing the gift at a Target store, a stranger informed Gentry that sparks were coming from underneath her car.
- Alarmed by the stranger and the car trouble, Gentry decided to drive to a nearby Auto Shack, where she had friends and could use a phone, to call her father for help.
- The route to the Auto Shack was in the opposite direction of the route to the bank where she was supposed to make the company deposit.
- While driving across the road toward the Auto Shack, Gentry's car collided with a motorcycle on which Alan Craig was a passenger.
Procedural Posture:
- Alan Craig sued Deborah F. Gentry, her father Calvin Gentry, and her employer, Williams Generics, in a trial court for negligence.
- Williams filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court treated as a motion for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Williams, finding that Gentry was not acting within the scope of her employment at the time of the accident.
- Craig, the plaintiff, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the intermediate appellate court.
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 an employee's attempt to address a sudden mechanical issue with her personal vehicle, while on a journey that includes an employer's errand, constitute a deviation from the scope of employment that relieves the employer of liability for the employee's negligence?
Opinions:
Majority - Farmer, J.
No. An employee's attempt to remedy a vehicle problem necessary for completing an employer's errand is considered part of the overall business journey and does not, as a matter of law, constitute a personal deviation that suspends the employer-employee relationship. The court reasoned that the employee's car was an integral part of the business journey to the bank. Therefore, her attempt to address the potential mechanical problem was not a personal mission but was "part and parcel" of her continued effort to complete her employer's business. The court analogized her action to stopping to purchase gasoline or repair a flat tire, which are necessary acts to enable the continuation of a business journey. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the court concluded that it could not be said that the employee had deviated from the course of her employment as a matter of law.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the 'deviation' or 'frolic and detour' doctrine within the law of respondeat superior. The court's decision suggests that a deviation from a direct route is not dispositive if the purpose of the deviation is to facilitate the completion of the employer's ultimate objective. By analogizing the car trouble to needing gas or fixing a flat, the court establishes that actions taken to maintain the means of transport for a business errand are within the scope of employment. This broadens the scope of employer liability for incidents that occur during seemingly indirect or non-business related travel, so long as that travel is in service of completing the primary business task.
Unlock the full brief for Craig v. Gentry