Le Elder v. Rice
21 Cal. App. 4th 1604, 94 Daily Journal DAR 761, 26 Cal. Rptr. 2d 749 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer is not vicariously liable for an employee's torts under the doctrine of respondeat superior when the employee, although on-call 24 hours a day, is engaged in a purely personal activity that constitutes a substantial deviation from employment duties.
Facts:
- Dennis Lee Rice was a regional service manager for McDonnell Douglas Corporation, a job which required him to be available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
- McDonnell Douglas required Rice to participate in a vehicle plan that reimbursed some maintenance costs and required the company to be named as an additional insured on his personal auto policy.
- On the morning of the incident, Rice was returning to his home after completing a personal errand of dropping his children at school.
- While returning home from the school, Rice's vehicle struck Virginia Le Elder as she was crossing the street on her bicycle, causing severe injuries.
- At the time of the accident, Rice was not actively engaged in any work task; he planned to make a business call from home approximately one hour and fifteen minutes after his return.
Procedural Posture:
- Virginia Le Elder sued McDonnell Douglas Corporation in a California trial court, seeking to hold the company vicariously liable for the alleged negligence of its employee, Dennis Lee Rice.
- The trial court bifurcated the trial, first considering the issue of whether Rice was acting within the scope of his employment.
- The trial court found that Rice was not acting within the scope of employment and entered a judgment in favor of McDonnell Douglas.
- Le Elder, the plaintiff, appealed the trial court's judgment to the California Court of Appeal.
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 employer's requirement that an employee be on-call 24 hours a day automatically render the employer vicariously liable for the employee's negligence when the employee is engaged in a purely personal activity?
Opinions:
Majority - Sonenshine, J.
No. An employer's requirement that an employee be on-call 24 hours a day does not automatically subject the employer to vicarious liability for the employee's torts committed during a purely personal activity. The doctrine of respondeat superior applies only when the employee's conduct is within the scope of employment, which is determined by whether the risk was typical or broadly incidental to the employer's enterprise. Here, Rice's trip to take his children to school was a purely personal activity and a 'substantial personal deviation' from his employment duties. The court rejected the argument that factors like on-call status, vehicle reimbursement, or the intent to make a work call later could transform this personal errand into a business activity. Public policy does not support imposing 24-hour liability on employers for the purely personal conduct of on-call employees, as the employer has no right to control such conduct.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of respondeat superior in the context of modern employment where technology makes employees constantly accessible. The court reinforces the traditional 'scope of employment' test, holding that an employee's on-call status is not dispositive. By focusing on the specific 'injury-producing activity' rather than the general conditions of employment, the ruling prevents a significant expansion of vicarious liability. This precedent protects employers from potentially limitless liability for employees' personal conduct and affirms that a substantial personal deviation, like a family errand, breaks the causal chain required for respondeat superior.
