Pister v. Matrix Service Industrial Contractors
2013 IL App (4th) 120781 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The 'traveling employee' doctrine, which originates in workers' compensation law to provide benefits to employees injured while traveling for work, does not extend to tort cases to hold an employer vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for an employee's negligence while commuting to a worksite.
Facts:
- Matrix Service Industrial Contractors, Inc. (Matrix) hired Brian Stultz for a construction job in Champaign, Illinois, which required him to travel from his home in Ohio.
- On April 12, 2009, the day before he was to start the job, Stultz attended an Easter dinner where he met with Larry Martin, a Matrix equipment supervisor.
- Following this meeting, Stultz's family members claimed he was transporting a box of welding rods and an angle iron in his personal vehicle to the Champaign jobsite at the direction of Matrix.
- Evidence presented by Matrix indicated that the Champaign job required no welding, and that the materials in Stultz's car were likely scrap for his personal use, as he was an avid welder who often took leftover materials.
- In the early morning of April 13, 2009, while driving from Ohio to the Champaign jobsite, Stultz's vehicle crossed the centerline and collided with a vehicle driven by Jeffrey Pister.
- The collision resulted in the deaths of both Brian Stultz and Jeffrey Pister.
Procedural Posture:
- Tisha Pister, on behalf of Jeffrey Pister's estate, filed a complaint against Matrix and the Estate of Brian Stultz in the Circuit Court of Champaign County, the trial court.
- Matrix filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing Stultz was not acting as its employee at the time of the accident.
- The trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Matrix, prohibiting Pister from arguing the 'traveling employee' theory of liability to the jury.
- The trial court allowed the case to proceed to trial solely on the alternative 'special errand' theory of liability.
- Prior to trial, Pister voluntarily dismissed the Estate of Brian Stultz as a defendant.
- A jury trial was held on the 'special errand' theory, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Matrix.
- Pister filed a posttrial motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied.
- Pister (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth District, arguing the trial court made several errors, including its summary judgment ruling.
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 'traveling employee' principle, a doctrine developed in Illinois workers' compensation law, apply in a respondeat superior tort case to hold an employer vicariously liable for the negligence of an employee who causes a fatal accident while commuting to a remote jobsite?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Holder White
No, the 'traveling employee' principle from workers’ compensation cases does not extend to respondeat superior tort cases. The court reasoned that the purposes of the Workers’ Compensation Act and the doctrine of respondeat superior are fundamentally different. Workers' compensation is designed to provide broad, no-fault financial protection for work-related injuries, whereas respondeat superior imposes liability on an employer for an employee's negligence only when the employee is acting within the narrower 'scope of employment.' Extending the broad 'traveling employee' rule to tort law would create potentially unlimited liability for employers over employee actions they do not directly control, contrary to the more limited inquiry required for respondeat superior.
Concurring - Justice Appleton
While concurring with the majority's judgment, this opinion argues that the 'traveling employee' theory of liability should logically apply to respondeat superior cases. The opinion suggests it is a 'legal anomaly unsupported by logic' to hold an employer liable for a traveling employee's own injuries under workers' compensation but not for the injuries that same employee inflicts upon a third party. If a business benefits from having employees travel long distances, it should be vicariously liable for the increased risks, such as fatigue-caused accidents, that this travel creates.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the distinction between the broad 'arising out of and in the course of employment' standard used in workers' compensation law and the narrower 'scope of employment' test for vicarious liability in torts. By refusing to import the 'traveling employee' doctrine into respondeat superior cases, the court maintains the strength of the general 'coming and going' rule, which shields employers from liability for torts their employees commit during their daily commute. The ruling clarifies that for an employer to be held liable for an employee's negligence during a commute, a plaintiff must prove a more direct connection to the employer's business, such as the 'special errand' exception, rather than merely showing that the employee's job required travel.
