Estes v. Comstock Homebuilding Companies, Inc.
673 S.E.2d 399 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for an employee's negligent personal act if the act occurs on the employer's premises while the employee is attentive to their duties and there is a direct nexus between the negligence and the performance of a work-related task.
Facts:
- David Estes owned a house that he leased to Comstock for use as a sales model home.
- Heidi Haskell was a sales assistant employed by Comstock, assigned to work at the model home.
- Comstock's policy required Haskell, when working alone, to remain on the premises at all times unless showing a property to a customer.
- Haskell's duties included answering the telephone, assisting customers, and general maintenance.
- While on duty, Haskell went onto the model home's attached deck to smoke a cigarette.
- As she was smoking, the telephone inside the house began to ring.
- Haskell attempted to extinguish the cigarette and went inside to answer the phone, which was one of her required duties.
- She failed to completely extinguish the cigarette, which then caused a fire that extensively damaged the house.
Procedural Posture:
- David Estes (plaintiff) filed a complaint in a North Carolina trial court against Comstock and Heidi Haskell (defendants), alleging Haskell's negligence caused the fire and that Comstock was vicariously liable.
- After discovery, Comstock filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing Haskell was not acting within the scope of her employment.
- Estes filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment, asking the trial court to rule as a matter of law that Haskell was acting within the scope of her employment.
- The trial court granted Estes's motion for partial summary judgment, finding that Haskell's negligence should be imputed to Comstock under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
- Comstock (appellant) appealed the trial court's order granting partial summary judgment to the Court of Appeals of North Carolina.
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 employee acting within the scope of employment for purposes of respondeat superior when their negligence occurs while performing a personal act that is concurrent with, and interrupted by, an official work duty?
Opinions:
Majority - Hunter, Robert C., Judge.
Yes, an employee is acting within the scope of employment when their negligence occurs during a personal act that is closely connected to performing a work duty. The court reasoned that not every personal act constitutes a total departure from the employer's business. In this case, two key factors established Comstock's liability: 1) Haskell was on her employer's premises where she was required to be, remaining able and willing to perform her duties; and 2) the negligent act (hastily putting out the cigarette) occurred as she was moving to perform a specific job duty (answering the phone). This created a sufficient nexus between her personal act and her employment, distinguishing this case from precedents like Tomlinson v. Sharpe, where the employee was not on the employer's premises or engaged in any work-related activity at the time of the negligent act. The court also held that whether smoking was authorized was irrelevant, as an employer can be liable even for a forbidden act if it occurs within the course and scope of employment.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'scope of employment' doctrine by narrowing the 'frolic and detour' defense for employers, especially for torts committed on the worksite. It establishes that a minor personal act, such as a smoke break, does not automatically sever the employment relationship for liability purposes. The key takeaway for future cases is the 'nexus' test: if the employee's negligent personal act is closely connected in time, place, and purpose to the performance of a job duty, the employer will likely be held vicariously liable. This holding emphasizes the employer's responsibility for employees who are 'on the clock' and attentive to their duties, even if simultaneously engaged in a minor personal activity.
