RONALD HARRIS VS. BERNARDO CHAVEZ-ECHEVERRY, Â(L-5071-14, ATLANTIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-3134-16T1

On August 23, 2012, dealership lot worker Bernardo Chavez-Echeverry, driving a dealership-owned car, struck Ronald Harris’s motorcycle; Harris sustained serious injuries.
Chavez-Echeverry had been given keys to the dealership car to get gas; en route he decided (without informing anyone and contrary to policy) to stop at his home to lock his door; the accident occurred on that trip.
Chavez-Echeverry had a prior driving record with multiple convictions (unsafe operation, prior accident, unlicensed, etc.), and HR/supervisors had received emails and reports raising concerns about his job performance, insubordination, and possible on-the-job drinking before the accident.
Supervisors acknowledged gas was normally to be obtained at a station next to the dealership but also testified Chavez-Echeverry could obtain keys and often was the sole person filling cars; one manager recalled reports that Chavez-Echeverry drank on the job but did not recall investigating.
Trial court granted summary judgment to the dealership defendants (Boardwalk Acura, NJ-HAII, Inc., and Group 1 Automotive, Inc.); the Appellate Division vacated that grant and remanded, finding genuine issues of material fact on respondeat superior and negligent hiring/retention.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Chavez-Echeverry was acting within the scope of employment (respondeat superior)	Chavez-Echeverry was performing a dealership task (getting gas) and thus his trip had a dual purpose (employer and personal); respondeat superior applies	Trip to his home was personal and contrary to policy, so not within scope of employment	Remanded — triable issue exists under the dual-purpose exception; summary judgment improperly decided scope as a matter of law
Whether defendants negligently hired, supervised, or retained Chavez-Echeverry (duty and breach)	Defendants knew or should have known of his dangerous driving record and reports of on-the-job drinking/insubordination and nevertheless allowed him access to dealership vehicles	Defendants argued no negligent hiring/retention liability as a matter of law	Remanded — factual issues exist whether defendants owed a duty and breached it by permitting him to drive, and whether that breach proximately caused Harris’s injuries

Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (N.J. 1995) (standard for reviewing summary judgment and viewing facts in favor of nonmoving party)
Templo Fuente De Vida Corp. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 224 N.J. 189 (N.J. 2016) (de novo appellate review of summary judgment)
Carter v. Reynolds, 175 N.J. 402 (N.J. 2003) (elements and scope analysis for respondeat superior and dual-purpose exception)
Di Cosala v. Kay, 91 N.J. 159 (N.J. 1982) (doctrine and standards for negligent hiring, supervision, and retention)
Gilborges v. Wallace, 78 N.J. 342 (N.J. 1978) (presumption that use of employer-owned instrumentality is within scope of employment)
Kernan v. One Washington Park Urban Renewal Assocs., 154 N.J. 437 (N.J. 1998) (duty is a question of law; framework for duty analysis)