Lazar v. Thermal Equipment Corp.
148 Cal.App.3d 458, 1983 Cal. App. LEXIS 2318, 195 Cal. Rptr. 890 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employee's minor and foreseeable personal deviation while commuting in a company vehicle for the employer's benefit does not constitute a departure from the scope of employment.
Facts:
- Thermal Equipment Corporation employed Richard Lanno as a project engineer.
- Lanno's job required him to be on call after hours and weekends to handle troubleshooting calls from customers.
- To facilitate these duties, Thermal provided Lanno with a company truck to take home daily, paid for his gas, and permitted him to use it for personal purposes.
- Having the truck at his home ensured Lanno was ready to respond to emergency calls.
- On March 5, 1976, after finishing work, Lanno began driving the company truck in a direction away from his home.
- Lanno planned to stop at a store for a personal errand before proceeding to his home.
- Before reaching the store, Lanno collided with a vehicle driven by Marvin Lazar, causing injury to Lazar and damage to his car.
Procedural Posture:
- Marvin Lazar (plaintiff) sued Thermal Equipment Corporation (defendant) in a trial court.
- Following a trial, a jury returned a verdict for Lazar for $81,000 but made a special finding that the employee, Lanno, was not acting within the scope of his employment.
- Based on the jury's special finding, the trial court reduced the judgment to $15,000, the statutory limit for liability based on permissive use of a vehicle.
- Lazar filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), arguing that Lanno was within the scope of employment as a matter of law.
- The trial court granted Lazar's motion for JNOV, setting aside the reduced award and entering a judgment against Thermal for the full $81,000.
- Thermal Equipment Corporation (appellant) appealed the trial court's order granting the JNOV 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 the doctrine of respondeat superior apply to hold an employer liable for an employee's tort committed during a minor personal deviation while commuting home in a company vehicle, when the commute itself provides a substantial benefit to the employer?
Opinions:
Majority - Schauer, P. J.
Yes, the doctrine of respondeat superior applies. The 'going and coming' rule is inapplicable here because the employee's commute conferred a tangible benefit upon the employer by making the company truck available for emergency after-hours calls. The employee's personal errand was a minor and foreseeable 'deviation' from his employment duties, not a substantial 'departure.' The modern justification for respondeat superior is not based on employee control but on a policy of risk allocation, where the foreseeable losses caused by employee torts are considered a cost of doing business. The court found that an employee stopping for a brief personal errand on the way home is a predictable occurrence, and liability should not turn on a 'nice inquiry' into the geographical direction of the deviation but on the foreseeability and substantiality of the employee's departure from the employer's business.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the modern, policy-based view of respondeat superior, focusing on foreseeability and risk allocation rather than rigid, older tests like 'control' or geographical direction. It expands the 'incidental benefit' exception to the 'going and coming' rule, clarifying that an employee's commute can be within the scope of employment if it serves a substantial business purpose. By holding that minor, foreseeable personal deviations during such a commute do not sever the employment relationship for liability purposes, the case makes it more difficult for employers to escape liability for torts committed by employees using company vehicles, even when on a personal errand.
