Phyllis Dodson, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Eboni Dodson v. Curt D. Carlson, Carmel Hotel Company, d/b/a Grille 39, Seven Corners, Inc.
14 N.E.3d 781
Ind. Ct. App.2014Background
- On Feb. 22, 2010, Curt Carlson left a business meeting/dinner with his employer (Seven Corners owner Jim Krampen) at the Renaissance Hotel after consuming alcohol and drove home; minutes later he struck a disabled vehicle, killing Eboni Dodson. Carlson registered .12 on a breath test and was arrested for suspected OUI.
- Dodson’s estate sued Carlson, the hotel, and Seven Corners asserting respondeat superior liability for Carlson’s negligence and wrongful death.
- At summary judgment, Seven Corners argued Carlson was off-duty and not acting within the scope of employment when the crash occurred; the trial court granted summary judgment for Seven Corners.
- The principal legal question was whether consumption of alcohol during a business-related meal/meeting and immediate travel home places the employee’s conduct within the scope of employment (making the employer vicariously liable).
- The court assessed the “going and coming” rule and whether any facts created a genuine dispute that Carlson’s post-meeting drive furthered employer business or was otherwise incidental to his job.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Carlson was acting within the scope of employment (respondeat superior) when he drove home and caused the accident | Dodson argued Carlson’s drinking occurred during a business-related meeting and thus was work-related, making his subsequent driving part of a work-related trajectory | Seven Corners argued Carlson was on personal time, the accident occurred while he was going home, and the going-and-coming rule bars vicarious liability | Held for Seven Corners: Carlson was not acting within the scope of employment as a matter of law; the going-and-coming rule applies and no genuine factual dispute existed |
Key Cases Cited
- Biel, Inc. v. Kirsch, 240 Ind. 69, 161 N.E.2d 617 (Ind. 1959) (articulates the going-and-coming rule limiting vicarious liability)
- Dillman v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc., 649 N.E.2d 665 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (mixed-purpose trips may present jury questions; ordinary travel to or from work is not within scope)
- Gibbs v. Miller, 152 Ind. App. 326, 283 N.E.2d 592 (Ind. Ct. App. 1972) (employee performing tasks incidental to employment while traveling can be within scope)
- Gullett v. Smith, 637 N.E.2d 172 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (on-call employees using employer vehicles can be within scope)
- Bell v. Northside Fin. Corp., 452 N.E.2d 951 (Ind. 1983) (summary judgment standard and evidence construed for nonmoving party)
- Barnett v. Clark, 889 N.E.2d 281 (Ind. 2008) (scope-of-employment standard: act must be incidental to authorized conduct or further employer’s business)
- Bell v. Hurstell, 743 So.2d 720 (La. Ct. App. 1999) (consumption of alcohol not required by employer does not expand course-and-scope; employer not liable for employee’s post-work intoxication)