2016 IL App (1st) 150877
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- On Aug. 3, 2012 Kurt Woltmann (Great Lakes carpenter) rear-ended Thomas Hoy while returning from a job site; Woltmann later died of unrelated causes.
- Hoy sued Woltmann for negligence and amended to add Great Lakes under respondeat superior after taking Woltmann’s deposition.
- Woltmann testified he had finished work for the day, was driving his personal truck, had personal tools in it, and was returning to Great Lakes headquarters to meet his boss Richard Godfrey about an unspecified "personal" matter.
- Godfrey denied scheduling or recalling any substantive personal meeting that day; phone records show a call from Woltmann to Godfrey at 2:02 p.m. (about 30 minutes after the crash).
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Great Lakes, concluding Woltmann’s trip was personal and outside the scope of employment. The appellate court affirmed on a different ground.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Woltmann was acting within scope of employment at time of crash | Hoy: A jury could find Woltmann was returning to HQ to discuss work-related matters with Godfrey, so Great Lakes is vicariously liable | Great Lakes: Woltmann was off the clock, in his personal vehicle, returning for a personal matter; not within scope | Affirmed for defendant: even accepting a work-related meeting, travel was ordinary commute to a regular jobsite and not within scope under Pyne rule |
| Whether factual dispute about meeting purpose precludes summary judgment | Hoy: Ambiguity about whether "personal" meant work-related creates material issue | Great Lakes: Testimony shows personal, not job-related purpose, and travel was commute | Court: Fact issue exists as to subject, but it is immaterial to legal outcome because the travel itself did not satisfy scope-of-employment exceptions |
Key Cases Cited
- Pyne v. Witmer, 129 Ill. 2d 351 (Ill. 1989) (establishes rule that ordinary travel to/from work is generally outside scope of employment, with limited exceptions)
- Bagent v. Blessing Care Corp., 224 Ill. 2d 154 (Ill. 2007) (scope-of-employment test adopting Restatement factors)
- Marco v. County of McHenry, 218 Ill. App. 3d 503 (Ill. App. Ct. 1991) (travels to a recurring workplace count as travel to a ‘‘regular jobsite’')
- Hall v. DeFalco, 178 Ill. App. 3d 408 (Ill. App. Ct. 1988) (employer liable where employee’s travel served an employer purpose beyond mere conveyance, e.g., transporting other employees under company policy)
- Northern Illinois Emergency Physicians v. Landau, Omahana & Kopka, Ltd., 216 Ill. 2d 294 (Ill. 2005) (appellate courts may affirm summary judgment on any correct ground supported by the record)