30 Cal. App. 5th 568
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Passenger (plaintiff) severely injured in single-vehicle rollover while riding in a GMC pickup owned by Graceland Dairy and driven by his father (Driver), an employee of Visser Ranch/Graceland Dairy.
- Driver worked long daytime hours, was on call 24/7, lived on employer property, and kept tools/spare parts in the company truck so he could respond immediately to repair calls; employer paid fuel/insurance and allowed off‑duty use to respond to emergencies.
- On the night of the crash Driver had driven from work to a family gathering, then left the gathering around 11:45 p.m.; Plaintiff was returning with him to Graceland Dairy where Plaintiff allegedly would start a work shift for an unrelated employer.
- Plaintiff sued Driver and the two corporate defendants alleging respondeat superior (vicarious liability) and negligent entrustment; defendants moved for summary adjudication of respondeat superior, arguing the trip was purely personal.
- Trial court granted summary adjudication for defendants; plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding triable issues existed whether Driver was acting within the scope of employment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Driver was acting within scope of employment (respondeat superior) | Driver was on call 24/7 and required to keep/use the company truck at all times; off‑duty use was for employer's benefit (ready to respond) | Trip was a purely personal family outing; Driver left work and was not performing employer business when accident occurred | Reversed: triable issues exist on scope — permission, employer benefit, required use, and foreseeability create factual disputes precluding summary adjudication |
| Whether Driver's personal travel qualifies as "purely personal" and removes vicarious liability | Even if trip was personal, dual purpose existed (secondary business purpose of being ready to respond; transporting Plaintiff to begin work) | The predominance of personal purpose makes the trip outside scope as a matter of law | Held that facts do not establish a purely personal purpose as a matter of law; dual‑purpose and foreseeability issues remain for jury |
| Application of scope tests (Purton / Halliburton) on summary adjudication | Employer permission and incidental benefit satisfied; required‑use and foreseeability prongs also met | Tests controlled by going‑and‑coming / purely personal exceptions; summary adjudication appropriate | Court found Purton and Halliburton tests could be met on the evidence and exceptions do not resolve the factual disputes at summary stage |
| Whether the employer can be charged with foreseeable risk under risks‑of‑the‑enterprise principle | Employer created/insured the risk by requiring continuous use and supplying vehicle/insurance; thus should bear loss | Employer argued trip was not business‑related so enterprise risk principle inapplicable | Court held foreseeability and risk‑spreading justification support a jury determination and defeat summary adjudication |
Key Cases Cited
- Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. Dept. of Transp., 220 Cal.App.4th 87 (discusses scope tests, foreseeability, and vehicle‑use issues)
- Hinman v. Westinghouse Elec. Co., 2 Cal.3d 956 (enterprise/risk allocation justification for respondeat superior)
- Purton v. Marriott Internat., Inc., 218 Cal.App.4th 499 (permission and benefit test for scope of employment)
- Lazar v. Thermal Equip. Corp., 148 Cal.App.3d 458 (company vehicle used off‑duty may be within scope when vehicle is kept ready for emergencies)
- Snodgrass v. United States, 957 F.2d 482 (7th Cir.) (government vehicle availability for off‑duty emergency response relevant to employer benefit)
- State ex rel. Dept. of Cal. Highway Patrol v. Superior Court, 60 Cal.4th 1002 (risks‑of‑the‑enterprise principle and employer's ability to spread risk)
- Le Elder v. Rice, 21 Cal.App.4th 1604 (contrast where employee used personal vehicle despite being on call)
- Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400, 25 Cal.4th 763 (standard for appellate independent review of summary judgment)
- Miller v. Dept. of Corrections, 36 Cal.4th 446 (de novo review of summary adjudication)