Moradi v. Marsh USA, Inc.
219 Cal. App. 4th 886
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Plaintiff (Moradi) sued driver Bamberger and her employer Marsh after a collision when Bamberger, driving her personal car required by Marsh for work, turned left to enter a frozen-yogurt shop while en route home from the office and hit Moradi on a motorcycle.
- Marsh required sales staff to use personal vehicles for client development and reimburse mileage; Bamberger regularly used her car for offsite meetings and had work materials in the car and planned business travel the next day.
- At the time of the accident Bamberger had transported coworkers to a company program earlier in the day, changed into exercise clothes at work, and intended to stop for frozen yogurt and attend a yoga class before going home.
- Trial court granted Marsh summary judgment, finding Bamberger was on a personal detour; Moradi appealed.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, applying the "required vehicle" exception to the going-and-coming rule and holding Bamberger was acting within the scope of employment when the accident occurred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether employer is vicariously liable under respondeat superior for an employee's commute accident when employer requires employee to use personal vehicle | Moradi: Marsh derived incidental benefit from required use of car; commute (and minor stops) fall within scope of employment under required-vehicle exception | Marsh: Bamberger was off-duty and pursuing personal errands (yogurt/yoga); going-and-coming rule bars liability | Held: Required-vehicle exception applies; Marsh is potentially vicariously liable because employee's use of her car conferred incidental benefit and stops were minor, foreseeable deviations |
| Whether planned personal stops (frozen yogurt, yoga) were a substantial departure from employment duties | Moradi: Stops were foreseeable, minor deviations and tied to convenience; did not abandon employment | Marsh: Stops were personal errands removing employee from scope of employment | Held: Stops were minor, foreseeable deviations—not substantial departures—so respondeat superior still applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Workmen’s Comp. App. Bd., 69 Cal.2d 814 (recognizing required-vehicle exception where employer requires employee to furnish car)
- Hinman v. Westinghouse Elec. Co., 2 Cal.3d 956 (scope of employment tied to risks incident to enterprise; incidental employer benefit relevant)
- Hinojosa v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd., 8 Cal.3d 150 (employer’s special requirement to supply transportation brings commute within employment)
- Loper v. Morrison, 23 Cal.2d 600 (deviation/substantial departure fact question; combining employer and personal purposes may still be within scope)
- Huntsinger v. Glass Containers Corp., 22 Cal.App.3d 803 (required vehicle confers incidental benefit; commute accidents foreseeable)
- Lazar v. Thermal Equipment Corp., 148 Cal.App.3d 458 (minor, foreseeable deviations while using required vehicle remain within scope; foreseeability/substantiality test)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Haight, 205 Cal.App.3d 223 (required-vehicle exception applies despite employee’s personal errand during commute)
- Ducey v. Argo Sales Co., 25 Cal.3d 707 (distinguishing required-vehicle cases where evidence shows employer did not require personal vehicle)
- Farmers Ins. Group v. County of Santa Clara, 11 Cal.4th 992 (broad interpretation of scope of employment; combining personal and employer business does not necessarily exclude liability)
- Lobo v. Tamco, 182 Cal.App.4th 297 (discussing required-vehicle exception to going-and-coming rule)