Hunter v. R. G. Watkins & Son, Inc.
1970 N.H. LEXIS 142, 110 N.H. 243, 265 A.2d 15 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer is vicariously liable for the negligence of its employee when the employee is acting within the scope of employment, regardless of whether the employee is using their own vehicle and regardless of whether the employer has the right to control the physical details of the vehicle's operation.
Facts:
- Ralph F. Davis, Jr. was an employee of R. G. Watkins & Son, Inc., working on a road construction project.
- On August 6, 1965, a company truck Davis was operating broke down.
- Davis's employer instructed him to use his personal car to drive to Lawrence, Massachusetts, to pick up a replacement part and bring it back the next morning.
- The employer kept Davis on the payroll until his normal workday ended at 5:00 PM to compensate him for his time and gasoline for the trip.
- On his return trip, Davis made stops for personal errands.
- Around 5:00 PM, while driving back toward his apartment, Davis was involved in a multi-vehicle accident in Enfield, New Hampshire.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs brought actions for wrongful death, personal injury, and property damage against R. G. Watkins & Son, Inc. in a New Hampshire trial court.
- Prior to trial, the parties agreed on a statement of facts and jointly requested that the court decide the threshold legal question of the employer's liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
- The trial court judge transferred the legal questions to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire for a decision without first issuing a ruling.
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 vicariously liable for the negligence of its employee committed while the employee is operating their own vehicle within the scope of employment, even if the employer lacks the right to control the physical details of how the employee drives?
Opinions:
Majority - Griffith, J.
Yes. An employer is liable for the negligent acts of its employee acting within the scope of employment, even when the employee is operating their own vehicle and the employer does not control the detailed operation of it. The court overrules its precedent in McCarthy v. Souther, which required a showing that the employer had the right to control the physical operation of the employee's vehicle. The court notes that this 'right to control' test represented a dwindling minority view and had been overemphasized in judicial reasoning. The proper focus is on the overall employer-employee relationship and whether the employee was acting on the master's business, not on the ownership of the vehicle or the employer's control over its specific operation.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the scope of vicarious liability for employers in New Hampshire by explicitly rejecting the 'right to control the instrumentality' test for cases involving employee-owned vehicles. By overruling McCarthy v. Souther, the court aligns New Hampshire with the modern majority rule, which focuses on the scope of employment rather than the details of physical control. This makes it substantially easier for plaintiffs to hold employers liable for torts committed by employees using their own cars for work-related errands, as they no longer have to prove the often-difficult element of the employer's right to control the employee's driving.
Unlock the full brief for Hunter v. R. G. Watkins & Son, Inc.