Timmons v. Silman
2000 WL 631269, 761 So. 2d 507 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer is not vicariously liable for an employee's torts when the employee's deviation from a business errand for personal reasons is so substantial that it constitutes a departure from the course and scope of employment. A deviation's substantiality is determined by a fact-intensive inquiry into its temporal and spatial boundaries, its relation to the business errand, and the additional risks it creates.
Facts:
- Catherine Stagg employed Stacie Michelle Silman as a clerical assistant, whose duties included running errands to the post office and a specific Central Bank branch.
- During an office Christmas luncheon, Stagg gave Silman her Christmas bonus check.
- Shortly after lunch, Stagg instructed Silman to drive to the post office, located four blocks away, to refill the firm's postage meter and then return to the office.
- Using her personal car, Silman drove to the post office and successfully refilled the postage meter, placing it in her car.
- Instead of returning directly to the law firm, Silman decided to drive to the Central Bank branch on North 18th Street to cash her bonus check.
- To reach the bank, Silman drove past her office, coming within one or two blocks of it, and continued for an additional eighteen blocks in the opposite direction from the post office.
- While en route to the bank for this personal errand, Silman was involved in a multi-vehicle accident that injured Michael Timmons.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael and Wanda Timmons filed suit against Stacie Silman, her insurer, and her employer's insurer, State Farm, in a Louisiana state trial court.
- The trial court granted State Farm's motion for summary judgment, dismissing it from the case.
- The Timmonses appealed to the Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal, which affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Louisiana Supreme Court granted the Timmonses' writ application, vacated the lower courts' judgments, and remanded the case for a trial.
- On remand, the trial court granted the Timmonses' motion for summary judgment on the same issue.
- State Farm appealed to the Second Circuit, which reversed the summary judgment and remanded for a trial on the merits.
- After a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of State Farm, holding that Silman was not in the course and scope of her employment.
- The Timmonses appealed, and the Second Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in an unpublished opinion.
- The Timmonses sought, and the Louisiana Supreme Court granted, a writ of certiorari to determine the correctness of the lower courts' judgments.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an employee's deviation from a business errand so substantial that it places her outside the course and scope of her employment when she, after completing the primary business task, drives eighteen blocks past her office for a purely personal errand?
Opinions:
Majority - Knoll, J.
Yes. An employee's personal deviation from a business errand removes her from the course and scope of employment when the deviation is substantial. The court analyzed several factors to determine the deviation's substantiality. First, Silman had completed her business task and was traveling away from the business route toward a personal objective. Second, the spatial deviation was significant, as she traveled eighteen blocks past her office for the personal errand, compared to the four-block business errand. Third, her motivation was purely personal—to cash her bonus check—and was not activated by any purpose to serve her employer, Stagg. The fact that she was familiar with the bank through her employment was irrelevant. Finally, the personal deviation, which dwarfed the business portion of the trip, was the direct cause of the accident, creating risks beyond those inherent in her employment. Therefore, the deviation was substantial, placing Silman outside the course and scope of her employment and relieving her employer of vicarious liability.
Dissenting - Calogero, C.J.
No. The deviation to the bank was insubstantial when compared to the principal errand. After considering all the facts and circumstances, the deviation was not significant enough to remove Silman from the course and scope of her employment at the time of the accident.
Dissenting - Lemmon, J.
No. An employee on an employer-ordered trip during work hours should not be considered outside the course and scope of employment for a deviation that was reasonable and insignificant in time and distance. The deviation to cash an employment-related bonus check at a bank familiar through work was entirely reasonable, and a reasonable employer would not have objected. Under such circumstances, the employee has tacit approval and remains within the course and scope of employment.
Dissenting - Johnson, J.
No. The deviation was not substantial enough to remove Silman from the course and scope of her employment. Silman was out of the office for her employer's benefit, and her decision to go to the bank where she regularly conducted firm business was sensible, not a substantial deviation. Because the trip was neither forbidden nor unforeseeable, and the personal errand was minor in the context of the overall work-related departure from the office, the employer should remain liable.
Analysis:
This decision refines the 'frolic and detour' doctrine within vicarious liability, emphasizing a multi-factor, fact-intensive analysis to distinguish between an insubstantial 'detour' and a substantial 'frolic.' The court establishes that once the business purpose of a trip is essentially complete, a subsequent personal trip that significantly expands the spatial and temporal scope of the journey will likely sever the employment connection for liability purposes. This holding provides guidance for future cases by focusing the inquiry on the relative magnitude of the personal deviation compared to the business errand and whether the deviation itself, rather than the original errand, created the risk that led to the tort.
