Pyne v. Witmer
129 Ill. 2d 351, 135 Ill. Dec. 557, 543 N.E.2d 1304 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Summary judgment is improper on the issue of an employee's scope of employment when reasonable persons could draw divergent inferences from the circumstantial evidence regarding whether the employee's deviation from their duties constituted a mere detour or a complete frolic.
Facts:
- William E. Witmer was an automobile mechanic employed by D.R.W. Enterprises, Inc. (D.R.W.).
- D.R.W. authorized and paid the fee for Witmer to drive his personal vehicle from his workplace in Streamwood to Rockford to take an evening certification test.
- The parties agree that traveling to, taking, and returning from the test were within the scope of Witmer's employment.
- After completing the test, approximately 2.5 hours passed before Witmer was involved in a car accident.
- At 10:30 p.m., Witmer's vehicle collided with a vehicle driven by Keith L. Pyne, resulting in Witmer's death.
- A post-mortem examination revealed Witmer was intoxicated with a blood-alcohol content of .187.
- The accident occurred near Marengo, on a route that was not the most direct but was a plausible way from Rockford to Witmer's home in Elgin.
- Before the trip, Witmer told his wife he might stay in Rockford a little late to study for a second test session scheduled for the next day.
Procedural Posture:
- Keith L. Pyne sued D.R.W. Enterprises, Inc. in the Circuit Court of McHenry County (trial court) under the theory of respondeat superior.
- D.R.W. moved for summary judgment, arguing that its employee, Witmer, was not acting within the scope of employment at the time of the accident.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of D.R.W. Enterprises, Inc.
- Pyne, as appellant, appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court.
- A majority of the Appellate Court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for trial.
- D.R.W. Enterprises, Inc., as appellant, was granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Illinois.
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 a genuine issue of material fact exist as to whether an employee was acting within the scope of his employment, thus precluding summary judgment for the employer, when he was involved in a fatal, drunk-driving accident 2.5 hours after completing an employer-sanctioned task at a location off the most direct route home?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stamos
Yes. A genuine issue of material fact exists, making summary judgment inappropriate when the question of scope of employment is at issue and reasonable persons could draw divergent inferences from the evidence. The court's role in a summary judgment motion is not to try an issue of fact, but to determine if one exists. The plaintiff, Pyne, presented circumstantial evidence—such as Witmer's familiarity with the roads, the plausibility of his route home, and his stated intention to study—from which a jury could infer that he had not abandoned his employment. The 2.5-hour gap and his intoxication could be interpreted as part of a stop for refreshment, which could be considered a slight deviation ('detour') rather than a complete abandonment of employment ('frolic'). Because the evidence does not point to only one conclusion, the question is one for the jury to decide.
Dissenting - Justice Ryan
No. The evidence leads to the sole logical inference that the employee was on a 'frolic' of his own and not in the course of his employment as a matter of law. The combination of the 2.5-hour time deviation, the significant geographic deviation from the most direct route home, and the employee's severe intoxication (nearly twice the legal limit) constitutes such a marked and unusual departure from his duties that no reasonable person could find he was acting within the scope of employment. The employee was serving solely his own personal purpose, and the mere fact that he was driving in the general direction of home is insufficient to bring him back within the scope of his employment.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high threshold for granting summary judgment in respondeat superior cases involving the 'frolic and detour' doctrine. It establishes that courts should be highly reluctant to take the scope of employment question from the jury, even in the face of strong evidence of an employee's personal misconduct like severe intoxication. The ruling emphasizes the power of circumstantial evidence to create a triable issue of fact, meaning that as long as a plaintiff can present a plausible narrative, supported by some evidence, that the employee was on a mere 'detour,' the employer will likely have to face a jury trial rather than obtain a pre-trial dismissal.
