Rodman v. CSX Intermodal, Inc.
938 N.E.2d 1136
Ill. App. Ct.2010Background
- Rodman was injured in a collision at CSX's premises while an employee of CSX was en route to punch out for the day.
- The CSX employee, Wielgosiak, was driving to punch out when the accident occurred; he remained on the clock at the time of the collision.
- CSX sought summary judgment contending Wielgosiak was not acting within the scope of employment at the time of the accident.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for CSX, concluding the employee was outside the scope of employment.
- Rodman argues Wielgosiak was en route to punch out and that punching out was a CSX-mandated duty integral to employment.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded for trial, finding issues of scope of employment were not properly resolved as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wielgosiak acted within the scope of employment | Rodman contends Wielgosiak was punching out as part of employment. | CSX argues the act was not within employment scope. | Not dispositive here; issue for trial. |
| Whether the three Restatement criteria are satisfied | Rodman asserts all criteria are met. | CSX argues criteria not all satisfied. | triable issue of fact remains. |
| Whether detour/frolic analysis supports vicarious liability | Rodman emphasizes any purpose to serve CSX during punching out. | CSX asserts no sufficient employer purpose. | Question for jury. |
| Whether summary judgment was proper given scope-of-employment questions | There exists genuine issue of material fact. | No genuine issue; employment scope not shown. | Reversed and remanded for trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Union Starch & Refining Co. v. Industrial Comm'n, 344 Ill. 77 (1931) (appearance on premises en route to clocking in/out in course of employment for workers' compensation)
- Northwestern Steel & Wire Co. v. Industrial Comm'n, 38 Ill.2d 441 (1967) (injury while crossing onto employer's property en route to time clock within course of employment)
- Hall v. DeFalco, 178 Ill.App.3d 408 (1988) (punching out did not necessarily end employment scope; route used may be customary)
- Pyne v. Witmer, 129 Ill.2d 351 (1989) (restatement criteria applied to determine scope of employment; detour vs frolic)
- Bonnem v. Harrison, 17 Ill.App.2d 292 (1958) (detour/frolic degree, whether conduct is within scope)
- Adames v. Sheahan, 233 Ill.2d 276 (2009) (restatement guidance; employee acts not within scope when not serving employer)
- Bagent v. Blessing Care Corp., 224 Ill.2d 154 (2007) (three Restatement criteria applied to scope of employment)