Cody v. Hardy
N16C-09-035 CEB
| Del. Super. Ct. | Oct 31, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Theresa Cody sued after a Delaware car collision with driver David N. Hardy; vehicle was rented by Ian Simpkins. Plaintiff asserts injuries and seeks damages.
- Hardy and Simpkins are Miami-Dade County employees (Historic Landscapes Specialists) who traveled to Delaware to attend an American Public Gardens Association Historic Landscapes Symposium. Attendance related to their job and factors into evaluations.
- Miami-Dade approved and paid "educational leave" for the trip, reimbursed travel, rental car (the vehicle in the accident), lodging (reduced rate at Winterthur), fuel, and per diem.
- The accident occurred while Hardy was returning from (or going to) a grocery store during the Symposium stay; parties dispute that precise moment but agree he was obtaining groceries.
- Miami-Dade moved for summary judgment arguing Hardy was off-duty on a personal errand (groceries) and thus the County is not vicariously liable; plaintiff and employee-defendants opposed, invoking the dual-purpose doctrine and that a jury could find the trip served County interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hardy was acting within the scope of employment (respondeat superior) when the accident occurred | Grocery trip was a foreseeable, logical incident of a work-related, out-of-state educational trip; dual-purpose doctrine applies so County benefited | Grocery shopping is personal and not of the kind County employs Hardy to perform; the trip was voluntary professional development, not required, so County not liable | Denied summary judgment — existence of genuine issue of material fact whether Hardy acted in scope of employment; jury question |
| Application of the dual-purpose rule (combining personal and employer business) | Even if primarily personal, the act may be within scope if employer benefited (educational leave, related symposium attendance, reduced lodging cost) | Argues shopping was purely personal and not serving County’s business | Court held facts could support dual-purpose application; not clear no employer purpose was served, so summary judgment inappropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. Sizemore, 405 A.2d 679 (Del. 1979) (summary judgment burdens and standard)
- Matas v. Green, 171 A.2d 916 (Del. Super. 1961) (viewing facts in light most favorable to nonmoving party on summary judgment)
- Coates v. Murphy, 270 A.2d 527 (Del. 1970) (Delaware follows Restatement approach for scope of employment)
- Wilson v. Joma, Inc., 537 A.2d 187 (Del. 1988) (dual-purpose rule explained for combined personal and employer business)
- Fields v. Synthetic Ropes, Inc., 215 A.2d 427 (Del. 1965) (employer liability for employee negligence within scope of employment)