Wilson v. Joma, Inc.
537 A.2d 187, 1988 Del. LEXIS 39 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the 'dual purpose' doctrine, an employee's conduct may be within the scope of employment, even if it serves a personal purpose, as long as the employer's business actuates the employee's actions to any appreciable extent.
Facts:
- James DeMaio was a full-time employee at Joma, Inc., a tire and gas center.
- Joma had a practice of minimizing the number of employees leaving the premises during business hours to ensure continuous customer service.
- Most employees were not permitted to leave the station for lunch, but DeMaio's position allowed him to do so.
- DeMaio was permitted an unpaid half-hour lunch break, the timing of which varied based on customer traffic.
- On January 23, 1985, during his lunch break, DeMaio took his motorcycle to a nearby shop to pick up sandwiches for himself and one or two co-workers who remained at the station.
- This was a usual, but informal, routine; DeMaio was not compensated for this task nor reimbursed for gas or mileage.
- While on this errand, DeMaio's motorcycle struck and seriously injured Carl L. Wilson.
Procedural Posture:
- Carl L. Wilson sued Joma, Inc. in the Superior Court of Delaware (trial court) to recover for personal injuries.
- Joma, Inc. moved for summary judgment, arguing its employee was not acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident.
- The Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of Joma, Inc.
- The plaintiff, Carl L. Wilson, appealed the grant of summary judgment to the Supreme Court of Delaware.
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 there a genuine issue of material fact as to whether an employee was acting within the scope of his employment when he caused an accident during his unpaid lunch break while picking up food for himself and for coworkers who were required to remain at work for the employer's convenience?
Opinions:
Majority - Moore, Justice.
Yes. A genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the employee was acting within the scope of his employment. Under the 'dual purpose' rule, an employee's act may be within the scope of employment if it is actuated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the employer. Here, although DeMaio was on his personal, unpaid lunch break, he was also performing a service that benefited his employer, Joma. By retrieving lunch for coworkers who were required to remain on-site, he was furthering Joma's business interest in providing uninterrupted customer service. Because a jury could reasonably find that serving Joma's purpose actuated DeMaio's conduct to an 'appreciable extent,' summary judgment for the employer was inappropriate.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the application of the 'dual purpose' doctrine, making it more difficult for employers to secure summary judgment in cases where an employee's personal errand has some incidental benefit to the business. It clarifies that even informal, uncompensated, and off-premises activities during an employee's break can fall within the scope of employment for vicarious liability purposes. The ruling emphasizes a fact-intensive inquiry, shifting the determination from a judge to a jury if any reasonable inference can be drawn that the employee's actions served the employer's interests.
Unlock the full brief for Wilson v. Joma, Inc.