Miguel v. Linden Motor Car Co.
45 N.E.2d 259, 1942 Mass. LEXIS 850, 312 Mass. 433 (1942)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employee's deviation from their prescribed route or duties for personal purposes, without authorization or necessity for business, generally falls outside the scope of employment, thereby insulating the employer from vicarious liability for the employee's negligence during such deviation.
Facts:
- Rebello was an employee of the defendant, and part of his work involved picking up and delivering automobiles for repairs.
- The daughter of a customer drove her automobile to the defendant's garage for repairs.
- The defendant's manager instructed another employee to deliver the automobile back to the owner's daughter; this task was then given to Rebello.
- Rebello delivered the automobile to the owner's daughter at her place of employment.
- The owner's daughter then drove Rebello to her place of employment and told him to drive the automobile back to the defendant's garage.
- Instead of driving directly to the garage, Rebello went to his home for breakfast.
- The collision occurred while Rebello was driving the automobile from his home to the defendant's garage.
- Rebello's home was located one mile due westerly from the owner's daughter's place of employment, and the most direct route from there to the garage was 1.3 miles due northerly; the collision occurred 0.1 mile due east from Rebello's home.
Procedural Posture:
- A trial judge (court of first instance) heard the case and found in favor of the plaintiff.
- The defendant requested a ruling from the trial judge that Rebello was not acting as the defendant’s agent at the time of the collision, but this request was denied.
- The case was reported to the Appellate Division for the Southern District for review of the trial judge's ruling.
- The Appellate Division for the Southern District found prejudicial error in the denial of the defendant's requested ruling.
- The Appellate Division for the Southern District vacated the finding for the plaintiff and ordered that a finding be entered for the defendant.
- The plaintiff then sought review by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts (the court issuing this opinion) to challenge the Appellate Division's order.
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 act within the scope of their employment when, after completing a required delivery, they significantly deviate from the most direct route to attend to a personal matter (e.g., going home for breakfast) before returning the vehicle to the employer's garage?
Opinions:
Majority - Cox, J.
No, Rebello was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the collision. The court found no evidence, by inference or otherwise, that Rebello had any authority to use the automobile for personal purposes, such as getting breakfast, as an incident of his employment. After dropping off the owner's daughter, Rebello's only remaining task within the scope of his employment was to drive the automobile directly to the defendant's garage. His detour to his home for breakfast constituted a personal deviation from his duties. The court distinguished this case from precedents where employees chose an efficient route, had resumed duty after a deviation, or where the deviation had ended. Instead, it aligned with established case law, such as McCarthy v. Timmins and Fleischner v. Durgin, which hold that such personal detours fall outside the scope of employment for vicarious liability purposes.
Analysis:
This case establishes a strict standard for determining 'scope of employment' in situations involving employee deviations for personal benefit. It underscores that even when an employee is in possession of an employer's vehicle, a significant departure from the prescribed business route or purpose for a personal errand severs the employer's vicarious liability. The ruling emphasizes the need for a clear link between the employee's actions and the employer's business at the time of an incident. Future cases will likely cite this precedent to limit employer liability when an employee's actions are demonstrably for personal, rather than business, objectives, placing a burden on plaintiffs to prove that the employee had resumed their employer's business at the moment of the incident.
