Sumrall v. Modern Alloys, Inc.
G052678M
| Cal. Ct. App. | Apr 18, 2017Background
- Modern Alloys employed Juan Campos as a cement/mason finisher; he was paid only for hours worked at the jobsite (9:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m.).
- Modern Alloys had a yard in Stanton where crews were expected to assemble (~8:00 p.m.) before driving company vehicles to the jobsite; Campos would drive a company two-ton dump truck from the yard to the site carrying coworkers and materials.
- On October 7, while driving his personal car from home to the Modern Alloys yard, Campos collided with motorcyclist Michael Sumrall just outside the yard parking lot.
- Sumrall sued Modern Alloys under respondeat superior for Campos’s negligence; Modern Alloys moved for summary judgment asserting the going-and-coming rule (no scope of employment while commuting).
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Modern Alloys; the Court of Appeal reversed, finding triable factual issues about whether Campos was on a business errand when the collision occurred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Campos was acting within scope of employment at time of collision (business-errand exception to going-and-coming rule) | Sumrall: Campos was on an employer-directed business errand by driving to the yard to pick up a company truck, coworkers, and materials, so employer liability attaches from when he left home | Modern Alloys: Campos was merely commuting to the workplace (the yard); under the going-and-coming rule he was outside scope and employer not liable | Reversed summary judgment: factual dispute exists about the workplace and whether the trip conferred an incidental benefit to employer; issue for jury |
Key Cases Cited
- Jeewarat v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., 177 Cal.App.4th 427 (discusses business-errand exception to going-and-coming rule)
- Hinman v. Westinghouse Elec. Co., 2 Cal.3d 956 (explains going-and-coming rule, incidental benefit test, and public-policy basis for respondeat superior)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (summary judgment burdens and standards)
- Ducey v. Argo Sales Co., 25 Cal.3d 707 (business errand can place employee within scope of employment)
- Boynton v. McKales, 139 Cal.App.2d 777 (business errand may be part of regular duties; scope analysis)
- Blackman v. Great American First Savings Bank, 233 Cal.App.3d 598 (scope of employment generally a question of fact, but can be decided as matter of law when inferences are not conflicting)
- Trejo v. Maciel, 239 Cal.App.2d 487 (all relevant circumstances weighed by jury in business-errand inquiry)