Miller v. Reiman-Wuerth Co.
598 P.2d 20, 1979 Wyo. LEXIS 435 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employee's conduct is not within the scope of employment for purposes of vicarious liability if the conduct is a purely personal errand, not actuated even in part by a purpose to serve the employer, even if the employer permits the errand during work hours.
Facts:
- James W. Grandpre was employed as a carpenter by Reiman-Wuerth Company on a construction jobsite.
- On January 6, 1977, Grandpre requested and received permission from his supervisor to leave the jobsite to deposit his paycheck at a local bank.
- Grandpre's purpose was personal: to prevent his own checks from being dishonored and to avoid potential embarrassment for his ex-wife who worked at the bank.
- Reiman-Wuerth Company's policy allowed employees to take unpaid time off for such personal activities, expecting them to return promptly after completion.
- Grandpre drove his own automobile for the errand, as he had never used his personal vehicle for company business.
- After depositing his check, Grandpre was involved in a multi-vehicle collision while returning to the jobsite.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs, victims of a multi-vehicle collision, filed a lawsuit for damages against multiple defendants, including Reiman-Wuerth Company, in the District Court (a trial court).
- Defendant Reiman-Wuerth Company moved for summary judgment, arguing that its employee, Grandpre, was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the collision.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Reiman-Wuerth Company.
- The plaintiffs appealed the summary judgment to this 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 act within the scope of employment for purposes of vicarious liability when, with the employer's permission during work hours, he undertakes a purely personal errand in his own vehicle for which he is not paid?
Opinions:
Majority - Rooney, Justice
No. An employee's conduct is not within the scope of employment if it is not actuated, even in part, by a purpose to serve the employer. The court reasoned that for an act to be within the scope of employment, it must be motivated at least partially by a purpose to serve the master, as outlined in the Restatement (Second) of Agency § 228. Grandpre’s trip to the bank was an entirely personal errand, intended only to manage his own finances. The appellants' argument that the errand benefited the employer by contributing to the employee's 'happiness' is overly broad and would lead to an absurd result where all personal activities, including vacations and lunch breaks, would fall within the scope of employment. While scope of employment is typically a question for the jury, it becomes a question of law when only one reasonable inference can be drawn from the undisputed facts, which is the case here.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the traditional 'frolic and detour' doctrine in vicarious liability, narrowly construing the 'scope of employment' requirement. The court explicitly rejects the argument that an indirect benefit to the employer, such as improved employee morale, is sufficient to bring a purely personal errand within the scope of employment. This holding establishes a clear line: the employee's action must have some direct motivational link to serving the employer's interests. The case serves as a strong precedent for granting summary judgment to employers where an employee's tortious conduct occurs during a clear departure from work duties for personal reasons.
