Kohlman v. Hyland
210 N.W. 643, 54 N.D. 710, 50 A.L.R. 1437 (1926)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer may be held liable for a servant's torts if the servant's deviation from the prescribed route or duties is not so substantial as to constitute a complete abandonment of employment. Whether a deviation amounts to a complete abandonment is generally a question of fact for the jury, especially when the tort occurs after the servant has completed their personal errand and is returning to the course of employment.
Facts:
- The defendant, an electrical contractor, employed Ludwig as a foreman.
- Defendant instructed Ludwig to drive from Hillsboro to McKenzie county via a specific route (Mayville, Finley, Cooperstown, Carrington) and to stay overnight in Carrington.
- Ludwig, accompanied by another employee, Sinner, and the defendant's son, departed in the defendant's car carrying tools and equipment for the job.
- At Finley, Ludwig deviated from the prescribed route at Sinner's request, driving approximately 18 miles northwest to McVille so Sinner could visit his sister.
- This personal detour added about 36 miles to the total trip to Carrington.
- After about an hour in McVille, Ludwig began driving toward Carrington by way of New Rockford.
- While en route to New Rockford, and thus generally proceeding towards the day's ultimate destination of Carrington, Ludwig's vehicle collided with a horse-drawn buggy carrying the plaintiff, a thirteen-year-old boy, causing injury.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff, a minor, sued the defendant in a state trial court for personal injuries sustained in an automobile collision.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial.
- At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case, the defendant made a motion to dismiss the action.
- The trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, ruling as a matter of law that the plaintiff had failed to establish the defendant's liability.
- The plaintiff appealed the trial court's dismissal to the state's highest 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 deviation from a prescribed route for a personal purpose constitute an abandonment of employment as a matter of law, thus relieving the employer of liability, even if the tort occurs while the employee is returning to the designated route or destination?
Opinions:
Majority - Unidentified (concurred in by Christianson, Ch. J., and Nuessle, and Birdzell, JJ.)
No. A deviation from an employer's instructions does not automatically, as a matter of law, constitute an abandonment of employment severing the employer's liability. The court held that whether the servant has re-entered the scope of employment is a question of fact for the jury. The court reasoned that there is a permissible 'zone of deviation' and that the risk of employees departing from strict instructions is a foreseeable burden that industry should bear. Because the accident occurred after the personal business was concluded and while the servant, Ludwig, was driving back towards his ultimate destination for the day, reasonable minds could differ as to whether he had resumed his master's business. Therefore, the trial court erred in taking the question from the jury and dismissing the case as a matter of law.
Dissenting - Unidentified
Yes. The deviation from the prescribed route was so substantial and for a purely personal purpose that it constituted a complete abandonment of employment as a matter of law. The dissent argued that this was not a mere detour but a 'frolic' or 'joy ride' that the employer could not have anticipated, as Ludwig drove 36 miles out of the way for a co-worker's personal visit. Citing the 'great current of authority,' the dissent contended that a servant does not re-enter the scope of employment until they return to the point of departure or to a place they were required to be. Since Ludwig was still miles away from his prescribed route when the accident occurred, he was still on his own trip, and the master should not be held liable.
Analysis:
This decision represents a shift from a rigid, geographically-based 'frolic and detour' analysis to a more flexible, modern standard that favors jury determination. By introducing the concept of a 'zone of deviation,' the court expanded the scope of vicarious liability, making it more difficult for employers to escape liability by arguing that an employee completely abandoned their duties during a personal side trip. The ruling implies that unless a deviation is exceptionally egregious, the question of whether the employee re-entered the scope of employment is a factual inquiry for the jury, thereby increasing the legal risk for employers of traveling employees.
