MARIA M. FERREIRA, ETC. VS. WALTER QUEZADA(L-8045-12, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-1541-15T4
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Aug 7, 2017Background
- On November 3, 2010, Walter Quezada was driving a vehicle owned by his wife to his job as a maintenance worker for Planned Building Services (PBS) when he struck and killed a pedestrian; plaintiff is the decedent's mother and administratrix.
- Quezada stored personal tools and some PBS materials in the van; PBS provided on-site secure storage and did not require him to bring tools in his vehicle.
- Quezada was not paid for commute time, was not reimbursed for mileage, PBS did not provide the vehicle, did not control his route, and did not mandate the tools he carried.
- Plaintiff sued PBS under respondeat superior after adding PBS to an amended complaint; PBS moved for summary judgment arguing Quezada was outside the scope of employment at the time of the accident.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for PBS, denied plaintiff's motion to compel deposition of PBS operations manager Edmund Whisnant (whose certification supported PBS), and denied reconsideration; plaintiff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PBS is vicariously liable under respondeat superior for Quezada's commute accident | Quezada was providing a benefit to PBS (carried PBS materials/tools) and facts remain in dispute about work-related tools and hours such that exceptions to the going-and-coming rule may apply | Quezada was commuting (going-and-coming rule applies); PBS did not control commute, did not require vehicle or tools to be transported, and did not pay commute time | Held: No respondeat superior liability; commute falls outside scope of employment and no exceptions apply |
| Whether a material factual dispute exists precluding summary judgment | There remain genuine issues about whether tools/materials in van or work hours create a special mission or employer benefit | Whisnant's certification and other evidence showed PBS did not require transport of tools, control commute, or place employee on-call | Held: No genuine material factual dispute; summary judgment appropriate |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying plaintiff's motion to compel Whisnant's deposition after the discovery deadline | Whisnant was disclosed late and plaintiff attempted to schedule his deposition; further testimony could alter PBS's case | Plaintiff failed to timely subpoena or move to compel within the discovery period and did not show how further discovery would change outcome | Held: No abuse of discretion; motion denied because plaintiff did not timely pursue discovery and made no particularized showing discovery would produce needed facts |
| Whether denial of reconsideration was improper | The court extended discovery for PBS but refused to stay summary judgment for plaintiff's deposition request | Extension for PBS to depose Quezada was justified; plaintiff gave no basis showing the court's ruling was palpably incorrect | Held: Reconsideration denied; plaintiff failed to demonstrate a palpably incorrect or irrational basis |
Key Cases Cited
- Carter v. Reynolds, 175 N.J. 402 (2003) (articulates respondeat superior scope and exceptions to the going-and-coming rule)
- Mannes v. Healey, 306 N.J. Super. 351 (App. Div. 1997) (going-and-coming rule applies even when employee travels to perform a work-related act)
- Carberry v. State, Div. of State Police, 279 N.J. Super. 114 (App. Div. 1995) (special-mission exception explained for off-premises journeys)
- Badiali v. N.J. Mfrs. Ins. Grp., 220 N.J. 544 (2015) (summary judgment not premature absent a particularized showing that further discovery would supply missing elements)