Sheffer v. Carolina Forge Co.
2013 OK 48
| Okla. | 2013Background
- Two Carolina Forge employees (Garris and Billups) traveled to Joplin, MO on a company-paid business trip to entertain a customer and play in a golf outing; the company prepaid airfare, rental car, hotel arrangements, and gave $600 cash for trip expenses.
- Carolina Forge reimbursed employees liberally for trip expenses historically, including alcoholic beverages, and had no written policy restricting drinking or who could drive company-funded rental cars.
- After dinner, the two went to Buffalo Run Casino in Oklahoma (about 30 miles from Joplin); later Billups drove the rental car, missed an eastbound ramp, turned around, and collided with a tractor-trailer, causing injuries and death.
- Plaintiffs sued Carolina Forge for negligent entrustment and respondeat superior; the trial court granted summary judgment for defendant; plaintiffs appealed.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed, holding genuine issues of material fact exist as to both negligent entrustment and whether the employees were acting within the scope of employment; remanded for further proceedings and additional discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Negligent entrustment | Carolina Forge knew or should have known employees propensity to drink on trips and negligently provided a rental car without safeguards | Company lacked possession/control at time of crash and did not specifically entrust the car to Billups | Reversed: factual issues exist whether company negligently entrusted vehicle; for jury to decide |
| Respondeat superior (scope of employment) | Trip (including casino visit) fell within business trip discretion/authorized travel; reimbursements and lack of limits make casino trip foreseeable/within scope | Casino trip was personal deviation, so employer not liable | Reversed: reasonable minds could differ; scope is fact question for jury |
| Need for additional discovery | Plaintiffs sought more discovery (expense reports, depositions) to show company practice and authorization | Trial court denied or failed to rule; summary judgment entered | Court remanded and instructed plaintiffs should be allowed additional discovery on remand |
| Relevance of who rented car / who drove | Plaintiffs: employment relationship not required for negligent entrustment; rental paid by company implicates entrustment | Company: car rented in Garris’s name; did not know Billups would drive, so no entrustment | Court: employer’s lack of formal assignment and permissive company practice raise fact issues; negligent entrustment analysis focuses on act of entrustment, not employment status |
Key Cases Cited
- Feightner v. Bank of Okla., N.A., 65 P.3d 624 (Okla. 2003) (summary judgment presents legal question reviewed de novo)
- Martin v. Aramark Servs., Inc., 92 P.3d 96 (Okla. 2004) (de novo review applies to legal questions on summary judgment)
- Cranford v. Bartlett, 25 P.3d 918 (Okla. 2001) (summary judgment denied if disputed material facts exist)
- Phelps v. Hotel Mgmt., Inc., 925 P.2d 891 (Okla. 1996) (inferences must be viewed in light most favorable to nonmovant)
- Estate of Crowell v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Cnty. of Cleveland, 237 P.3d 134 (Okla. 2010) (all facts and inferences viewed for nonmovant)
- Casebolt v. Cowan, 829 P.2d 352 (Colo. 1992) (negligent entrustment liability arises from act of entrustment and control at time vehicle supplied)
- Oil Daily, Inc. v. Faulkner, 282 F.2d 14 (10th Cir. 1960) (under Oklahoma law, whether trip was a departure from employment is a factual determination)