Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Co. v. American Mutual Liability Insurance Co.
840 S.W. 2d 933, 1992 Tenn. App. LEXIS 629 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employee's return trip from an authorized, dual-purpose business errand falls outside the scope of employment when the employee makes a significant deviation for personal convenience or to serve a third party's interests, using an instrumentality and route not controlled or reasonably foreseen by the employer.
Facts:
- Bobby Clay Thomas worked as a foreman for Macon Hardwood Lumber Company ('Macon'), a logging business owned by his father.
- Macon needed a new pickup truck, and Thomas's father gave him full authority to purchase one at the Nashville Auto Auction.
- Thomas told his father he also intended to look for a personal car for himself at the auction.
- Thomas traveled to the auction with Lowell Smith, a used car dealer.
- After failing to find a truck for Macon or a car for himself, Thomas became eager to return home for his birthday celebration.
- Because Smith was not ready to leave, Smith permitted Thomas to drive a newly purchased Buick back to Smith's used car lot.
- Smith instructed Thomas to take a specific route back to Red Boiling Springs.
- While driving Smith's car on the route Smith selected, Thomas was involved in a head-on collision with a vehicle driven by Linda Roddy.
Procedural Posture:
- Linda Roddy and her son filed personal injury lawsuits against Bobby Clay Thomas and Lowell Smith in the Circuit Court for Wilson County.
- American Mutual Liability Insurance Company ('American Mutual'), the insurer for Thomas's employer Macon, denied coverage on the grounds that Thomas was not acting within the scope of his employment.
- Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company (Thomas's personal insurer) and Northland Insurance Companies (Smith's business insurer) filed a declaratory judgment action against American Mutual in the Circuit Court for Wilson County to determine coverage obligations.
- The trial court, sitting without a jury, found that Thomas was acting within the scope of his employment and ruled that American Mutual was required to provide representation and coverage.
- American Mutual, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeals of Tennessee, with Tennessee Farmers and Northland as appellees.
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 during a return trip from an authorized business errand when he borrows a third party's vehicle and takes a route dictated by that third party, primarily for personal convenience and to assist the third party?
Opinions:
Majority - Koch, Judge
No. An employee is not acting within the scope of employment when their conduct at the time of the tortious act is primarily actuated by personal motives or the interests of a third party, representing a marked and decided departure from the employer's business. Although the initial trip to the auto auction was a dual-purpose trip within the scope of employment, Thomas's return trip lost its business character. The court reasoned that Macon, the employer, had no control over the return trip and could not have reasonably anticipated Thomas borrowing a car from Smith to drive it back for him. The circumstances of the return were shaped by Thomas's personal desire to get home early and to assist Smith, not to serve Macon. The instrumentality (Smith's car) and the route were dictated by Smith, not Macon, making Macon's business merely incidental at the time of the accident. Therefore, the deviation was significant enough to remove Thomas's actions from the scope of his employment.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'scope of employment' doctrine concerning employee travel, particularly the concept of deviation. It establishes that a trip that starts as a business-related journey can lose that character if the employee's subsequent actions are a 'marked and decided departure' from the employer's interests. The court's focus on foreseeability, control over the instrumentality, and the primary motivation for the employee's actions provides a more nuanced framework for analyzing vicarious liability. This precedent makes it more difficult to hold employers liable when an employee's personal errand or favor for a third party becomes the primary purpose of their travel, even if it occurs during a return from an authorized business trip.
Unlock the full brief for Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Co. v. American Mutual Liability Insurance Co.