Sharrock v. United States
673 F.3d 1117
9th Cir.2012Background
- McCoy, an off-duty sailor on Guam, was driving to a Navy MWR basketball practice when the accident occurred; Sharrocks sued the United States under FTCA on a respondeat superior theory.
- Negligence by McCoy was conceded; the district court granted summary judgment for the United States, holding McCoy was not acting within the scope of employment.
- FTCA scope, applying California law, requires determining whether the act occurred within the scope of employment or in the line of duty; Guam law mirrors California for respondeat superior in this context.
- Navy MWR program created recreational activities; participation was voluntary, not mandatory, though encouraged; Captain's Cup was a planned tournament two weeks after the accident.
- Court concludes that an employee en route to a recreational activity, where participation is encouraged but not required, is not acting in the line of duty; the district court’s grant of summary judgment is affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McCoy was acting within the scope of employment at the time of the accident. | Sharrock argues the Navy created a special errand via MWR. | US contends participation was voluntary and not a special errand. | No; not within the scope of employment. |
| Whether Navy encouragement of MWR makes the accident a foreseeable risk within the scope of employment. | Sharrock asserts Navy environment made conduct foreseeable. | Encouragement alone does not make it a special errand. | No; not a special errand; not in line of duty. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lutz v. United States, 685 F.2d 1178 (9th Cir. 1982) (scope of employment under FTCA with military context)
- Jeewarat v. Warner Bros. Entm't, Inc., 177 Cal.App.4th 427 (Cal. App. 2009) (special errand analysis for employee conduct vs. enterprise)
- Blackman v. Great Am. First Savings Bank, 233 Cal.App.3d 598 (Cal. App. 1991) (special errand not proven where attendance was general benefit, not direct to daily operations)
- Chapin v. United States, 258 F.2d 465 (9th Cir. 1958) (military authority over servicemembers insufficient to expand liability beyond private employer)
- Concepcion v. United States, 374 F.Supp. 1391 (D. Guam 1974) (service member driving on base after duty not within scope of employment)
- Farmers Ins. Group v. County of Santa Clara, 11 Cal.4th 992 (Cal. 1995) (foreseeability as to whether conduct is typical of employer's business)
- Robbins v. Hewlett-Packard Corp., 26 Cal.App.3d 489 (Cal. App. 1972) (employee attendance at company event not necessarily a special errand)