Trahan-Laroche v. Lockheed Sanders, Inc.
657 A.2d 417, 1995 N.H. LEXIS 35, 139 N.H. 483 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer may be held liable for an employee's tort under the doctrine of respondeat superior if the employee's act, though for a temporary personal purpose, is incidental to their employment. Additionally, an employer has a duty to supervise an employee's activities, which may extend to actions performed outside the traditional scope of employment.
Facts:
- Lockheed Sanders, Inc. employed Patrick J. Maimone as a maintenance mechanic, whose duties included haying the company's fields.
- Maimone used his personal truck, trailer, and other equipment to perform the haying, and was permitted to keep the hay he removed as part of his compensation.
- Lockheed did not directly compensate Maimone for the use of his equipment or the time spent transporting it, but paid his normal wages while he was haying.
- After completing haying at one facility, Maimone left his trailer and some equipment on Lockheed's property.
- On October 24, 1990, after his workday but while still on Lockheed's premises, Maimone hitched his trailer to his truck.
- Maimone's immediate purpose was to use the trailer for a personal errand—transporting hay from his own farm to sell at a store.
- He planned to return the trailer to Lockheed's property afterward to remove his remaining farming machinery.
- While Maimone was driving from the Lockheed facility toward his farm for the personal errand, the trailer detached from his truck and collided with the vehicle of Rita and Luden Laroche.
Procedural Posture:
- Rita and Luden Laroche (plaintiffs) sued Lockheed Sanders, Inc. (defendant) in the New Hampshire Superior Court (trial court) under theories of respondeat superior and negligent supervision.
- The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing its employee was not acting within the scope of employment.
- The plaintiffs filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment, arguing the employee's actions were within the scope of employment as a matter of law.
- The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, ruling as a matter of law that the employee acted outside the scope of his employment.
- The trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the trial court's decision to the New Hampshire Supreme 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 a genuine issue of material fact exist regarding whether an employee was acting within the scope of his employment, or whether his employer was negligent in its supervision, when the employee, on the employer's premises, hitched his personal trailer used for work-related duties to his truck for a temporary personal errand and subsequently caused an accident?
Opinions:
Majority - Horton, J.
Yes, a genuine issue of material fact exists, precluding summary judgment for the employer. Whether an employee's actions are incidental to or within the scope of employment is a question for the jury when conflicting inferences can be drawn from the evidence. The plaintiffs alleged that the movement of Maimone's trailer for a temporary personal use was part of the overall work arrangement, as the trailer was on-site for the employer's benefit and Maimone intended to return it to complete his work tasks. This allegation, if proven, could support a finding that the personal errand was incidental to his employment, thereby establishing vicarious liability under respondeat superior. Furthermore, an employer's duty to negligently supervise an employee can extend to activities outside the scope of employment. The plaintiffs' allegations that Maimone had a history of accidents and that Lockheed failed to supervise him or inspect his equipment raise a separate jury issue regarding the employer's direct negligence.
Analysis:
This decision emphasizes that the determination of 'scope of employment' is a highly fact-sensitive inquiry, often unsuitable for resolution at the summary judgment stage. It broadens the potential for employer liability by reinforcing that acts with a mixed personal and business purpose, particularly those originating on company property with work-related equipment, can be deemed 'incidental to' employment. The case also affirms that negligent supervision is a distinct cause of action that does not depend on a finding of respondeat superior, holding employers accountable for monitoring employee conduct and equipment even when used for tasks outside their direct job functions.
