48 Cal.App.5th 569
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Driver Jonathan Gaurano rented a Lyft-approved vehicle through Lyft’s Express Drive program (rentals allowed personal use, Lyft billed rent weekly, program imposed weekly ride minimum and exclusivity while using the rental).
- Express Drive materials stated Lyft provides primary liability coverage when a driver is logged into the Lyft app; Hertz coverage applies when not logged in.
- On the day of the crash Gaurano parked his rental, spent the day working at a gaming conference for another employer, then took a rideshare to his car and drove home; while driving home he struck plaintiffs’ vehicles. He was not logged into the Lyft app and did not intend to drive for Lyft that day.
- Plaintiffs sued Lyft and Gaurano, asserting respondeat superior and joint-venture theories; Lyft moved for summary judgment arguing Gaurano was off-duty and acting for personal reasons when the accident occurred.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Lyft, relying on precedent treating off-duty personal trips in a company vehicle as outside the scope of employment; plaintiffs appealed and also challenged limits on a person-most-qualified (PMQ) deposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lyft is vicariously liable under respondeat superior (scope of employment) | Gaurano was effectively acting for Lyft whenever in the Lyft rental because Lyft controlled vehicle use, incentivized personal driving, and exclusivity made the vehicle useful to Lyft at all times | Gaurano was off-duty, not logged into the app, not performing Lyft services that day; mere use of a Lyft-rented vehicle does not create 24-hour employer liability | Court: No triable issue — Gaurano was engaged in a purely personal trip and substantially deviated from any Lyft duties; summary judgment for Lyft affirmed |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion limiting the PMQ deposition | Plaintiffs contend excluded topics (profitability and pre-implementation risk analysis of Express Drive) were needed to show Lyft benefited and foreseen risk of accidents | Lyft argued limits were proper and plaintiffs already had sufficient evidence; discovery rulings are discretionary and reversal requires prejudice | Court: No abuse of discretion shown and plaintiffs failed to demonstrate prejudice; limitation upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Le Elder v. Rice, 21 Cal.App.4th 1604 (Cal. Ct. App.) (company vehicle use does not create automatic 24-hour employer liability; personal deviations can be a substantial departure)
- Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. Dep’t of Transp., 220 Cal.App.4th 87 (Cal. Ct. App.) (scope-of-employment test: acts required or incident to duties, or reasonably foreseeable misconduct; material deviation removes employer liability)
- Purton v. Marriott Internat., Inc., 218 Cal.App.4th 499 (Cal. Ct. App.) (scope analysis includes permission plus employer benefit or customary incident of employment)
- Moreno v. Visser Ranch, Inc., 30 Cal.App.5th 568 (Cal. Ct. App.) (survey of scope-of-employment tests; fact question where driver was on-call and required to use employer vehicle)
- Sunderland v. Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Sys. Support Co., 130 Cal.App.4th 1 (Cal. Ct. App.) (payment of travel allowances or vehicle benefits does not by itself bring personal driving within scope)
- Lobo v. Tamco, 182 Cal.App.4th 297 (Cal. Ct. App.) (required-vehicle exception to going-and-coming rule may apply where employer required employee to make car available for work)