*1 ARBELAEZ, Appellant, Luzstella CORPORATION, BRAKES
JUST
Appellee.
No. 03-03-00587-CV. Texas, Appeals
Court
Austin.
May 2004.
Rehearing Aug. Overruled
that Paul was not within the course employment, his we reverse and remand.
BACKGROUND 2001, Paul, January In a mechanic for Brakes, approxi- Just arrived at work at minutes, mately a.m. a few 6:45 Within testimony, according deposition to Paul’s gave Paul his “first shop manager day, assignment” pick which was himself, up manager, breakfast for his nearby his other co-workers at a Mc- Christopher Sapstead, H. Mark W. exiting Donald’s restaurant. While Harbour, A. Crampton Cramp- and Clint vehicle, parking Just Brakes lot his own Associates, P.C., Austin, appel- ton & for Paul collided with Arbelaez. lant. negligence Arbelaez filed a lawsuit Courville, Prin- Craig Brantley A. Ross discovery, Paul. After some she against Jr., Jr., gle Thompson Wright and Michael petition to name Brakes amended her Just P.C., Greenhill, Austin, appellee. & for defendant, claiming as an additional it was vicariously negligence. liable for Paul’s LAW, Before Chief Justice Justices Through discovery, Arbelaez learned of KIDD and B.A. SMITH. facts, disputed, several some of which are that indicated that Paul was within the OPINION employment at the KIDD, Justice. MACK in a time of the collision. Paul testified manager a that had asked him summary judgment deposition This is case. We assign- grant go are asked to review the of a tradi- to McDonald’s as his “first summary-judg- In day.2 tional motion for ment” of the affidavit, Corporation. Paul’s stated appellee, favor of Just Brakes ment merely go allowed Paul to after Paul The district court ruled as a matter of law he However, Paul, in a later de- that Brian an of Just had volunteered. Brakes, manager admitted that he position, was not within the course and Paul’s way of an could not state for sure one or the at the time Luz- could have asked Paul to appellant, automobile collision with other and he Furthermore, affirma- Concluding go. stella Arbelaez. that an prove tively deposition as a matter of law testified Brakes failed A. Yes. 1. The record does not contain no-evidence Q. summary judgment. for already punched motion in. You were You had Right, sir? on the clock. deposition 2. Paul also testified in his as fol- A. Yes. lows: Q. gas paid trips. Right? for these Your Q. And, this, Okay. just Mr. so I'm clear on A. Yes. Paul, you today telling under are here us Q. you go pick up had told Your assignment you job oath that were on Right, sir? breakfast. from Just Brakes this collision oc- when A. Yes. right, sir? curred. Isn’t a traditional moves for defendant who routinely picked up breakfast at least judgment disprove A must every morning. corporate rep- summary the crew plain of each of the for Just Brakes also testified element resentative one essential conclusively used deposition practice recovery that this via tiffs theories of *3 only particular Brakes at this Just an affirmative each element of establish location, 166a(c); at other Just Brakes locations but P. Nixon v. Tex.R. Civ. defense. Moreover, corporate repre- Co., 546, as well. 548 Prop. Mgmt. 690 S.W.2d Mr. minimizing that sentative testified (Tex.1985). inference Every reasonable employees, as this meth- number absent in favor of the nonmov- indulged must be did, obtaining benefitted od of breakfast in its favor. any ant and doubts resolved it to service Just Brakes because was able Grinnell, v. 951 American Tobacco Co. in of time. period more cars a shorter Nixon, (Tex.1997); 690 425 S.W.2d disregard all conflicts at 549. We break- typically Paul stated he made the accept and the evidence the evidence shop “they” run for the because reim- fast as true. Great favoring the nonmovant gas him ten dollars a week for his bursed Co. v. Antonio Am. Reserve Ins. San money. Just Brakes asserts that the term Co., 41, 47 Supply 391 S.W.2d Plumbing “they” employees, refers to his fellow but (Tex.1965); Progressive Domizio v. Coun specifically deposition Paul stated his Co., 54 S.W.3d 871 ty Mut. Ins. manager paid that it was his who him.3 denied). pet. As Finally, morning question, App.-Austin on the Paul appellate in its paid succinctly was “on the clock” and was so states Brakes summary judg spent running time he this errand. of the brief: “The by provide either a trial ment rule is not a motion Just Brakes filed traditional affidavit, deposition by or a trial but summary judgment, asserting it summarily terminat provide a method vicariously negli- was not liable for Paul’s clearly appears a it ing case when gence because he was not within the involved, is only question a of law at the of fact remains.” See genuine no issue court time of the accident. The district Clements, Schlager v. appeal granted Just Brakes’ motion. This 1996, writ (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] followed. v. denied); Appraisal Dist. Dallas Cent. Corp., 905 S.W.2d Directories G.T.E. DISCUSSION denied). 1995, writ (TexApp.-Dallas Standard of review of the Although parties dispute some summary propriety Because the of a issue, re- our standard of review facts law, review judgment question we accept following facts quires us to trial de novo. Nativi court’s decision true: Alexsis, Inc., 695, 699 dad v. (cid:127) by asked (Tex.1994); v. Ameri Dep’t Texas Ins. Paul’s for the crew as obtain breakfast can Home Assurance day; assignment” A pet.). “first (Tex.App.-Austin locations, or tak- representative Just Brakes corporate testi- chanics between Just Brakes’ reimbursed fied that mechanics would be Just Brakes concedes customers home. they gas money when their be within sorts of errands would these used their vehicles to run business up parts, driving picking such as me- errands (cid:127) Garcia, daily run Paul’s breakfast rou- Comm’n v. (Tex.1995).
tine, In the context of a traditional both at this and other Just summary judgment, controlling motion for locations; Brakes generally fact issues are for the trier of (cid:127) by having only Just Brakes benefitted fact, for a defen shop one out of at a if appropriate only dant is the defendant- time; proves genuine movant that no fact issue (cid:127) paid him ten dollars plain exists on an essential element of the errand; money run gas week Poole, Corp. tiffs claim. El Chico See (Tex.1987); Jacobs (cid:127) paid by Paul was “on the clock” and (Tex.1975). Theimer, *4 spent Just Brakes for the time run- primary determining The test for whether ning this errand. employee acting an is within the course is scope employment and of whether the liability general Vicarious to direct and employer right has the con employer may An be held liable for employee’s performance trol the at the if employee the tortious acts of an the acts alleged negligent time of act. St. Jo the are within scope employ the course and of seph Wolff, v. 542 Hosp. Baptist Hosp. Sys. ment. See Mem’l v. (Tex.2003) (“the right to control remains (Tex.1998). Sampson, 969 S.W.2d 947 ‘supreme the test’ for whether the master- To of lia defeat Arbelaez’s claim vicarious relationship servant exists” and thus bility, required Brakes Just was estab liability ap whether the rule of vicarious (1) lish that: Paul as matter of law either Council, plies) (quoting Spread Golden (2) employee; negligent was not an act Am. v. Boy Inc. No. 562 Scouts of of (3) occurred; acting or Paul was not within Akins, (Tex.1996)); 926 290 S.W.2d scope the course and at employment Ins., Denke, American Nat'l v. 128 Co. of the time the collision. See Drooker v. (1936); Tex. see (Tex. Motors, Saeilo (Second) Agency of also Restatement denied) App.-Houston [1st Dist.] (1958).4 212, 219, §§ cmt. a (citing Kimbrough Leadon Lum Bros. that an em ultimately prove To (Tex.1972)). Co., ber scope ployee acted within Only prong scope the third and of —course however, employment, Arbelaez must of employment at issue here. —is (1) act was within prove at trial that the scope employment employ
Course and of general authority given to the (2) generally negligence ee; is a fact like employer’s issue in furtherance of the See, business; e.g., accomplishment cause. South proximate GTE and west, Bruce, object Inc. v. 618 of the for which the (Tex.1999); Kimbrough Bros. Comp. employed.5 Texas Leadon Workers’ master, (Second) Agency express an inference is 4. The Restatement of states orders of that, was within the course created that the servant considering and of when course master, employment; how- employment, is the servant’s state of ”[i]t ever, by proving that "can rebut the inference material,” mind that is and the servant's con- [acting] solely [the servant] was duct can be within course Id. master].” [serve of his own and not to actuated "if servant illus. 1. some extent an intent to serve the master.” (Second) Agency § 235 cmt. a Restatement developed test was in fact 5. We note that this (1958). carrying Where a servant was out the it was unclear whether situations where prove attempt In its occurred. Dumber 1972). within the of law that Paul was not only uphold can the district matter We Just employment, if Brakes Just course court’s arguments. several matter of law at least one of Brakes advances disproved as a First, “It is well es- Just Brakes states: these essential elements. See Tex.R. Civ. 166a(c); Nixon, is not Be that an P. tablished employer’s business authorized Paul to the furtherance cause crew, Brakes deviates from breakfast for the Just when he obtain purpose.” Just personal were for a dispute does not that Paul’s actions business him. that Paul’s general authority given Brakes then asserts within of, “condoned,” two “knew or allowed” only possibly therefore address the second We run, Paul to make the breakfast but prongs. Brakes go. “not ordered” to conducting summary-judgment In our did that Paul’s errand concludes review, however, we wish to stress that Brakes, “regardless not benefit Just weigh our task is not to the evidence of, or con- whether knew [Paul’s] determine whether Paul was in within fact doned, the diversion.” *5 of at the scope employment the course and prove fails to argument must Just Brakes’ question time of the collision. That Rather, not the course and by of fact. that Paul was within be resolved the trier employment for several rea- summary-judgment scope of his we are review the First, evidence, argument pre- of the non- sons. Just Brakes’ construed favor movant, Arbelaez, merely that Paul’s ac- supposes and determine whether make the quiesced allowing Paul to Just Brakes has carried its burden to es- summary-judgment The genuine tablish as a matter of law that no breakfast run. indicates, however, that Paul’s regarding question fact issues exist of evidence Therefore, affirmatively asked Paul to make scope. Just Brakes’ our shop. run for the Under certainly heavy burden is one. It must the breakfast review, that, we cannot—as Just establish as a matter of law constru- standard of have us do—assume light the facts in the most favorable to Brakes would Arbelaez, permission Paul to make the finding requested it is entitled to a run; assume Paul’s scope within breakfast we must was not perform Paul to this er- at the asked employment time of the collision. Co., 951 this rand. See American Tobacco We conclude Just Brakes has not met at 425. burden. summary judg-
Just Brakes’ motion for
Next,
argues that Paul
Just Brakes
ment
employment
deviated from his
because the
purely personal pur
ground
The sole
on which Just
breakfast run was for
by
contradicted
poses.
argument
was
This
Brakes moved
that Paul
summary-judgment
not within the course and the
evidence
Paul was
run as his “first as-
employment
of his
when the collision made the breakfast
(Tex.1939) (driver detoured from
actually serving
S.W.2d 282
servant was
the master.
developed
supper);
None
the seminal cases that
&
to obtain
International
mission
Anderson,
test involved a situation where the servant
82 Tex.
17 S.W.
G.N.R. Co.
out,
carrying
negligently, the ex
albeit
(1891) (railroad brakeman had no im
See, e.g.,
press
master.
directions of the
plied authority
eject passengers).
Frates,
Dairy Products Co. v. De
Southwest
signment”
day
request
prove
after he was
Brakes failed to
that Paul deviated
employment by
“If
from
by
manager.
complying
ed to do so
See id.
his
with
manager’s request
to make the break
serving
the master’s busi
fast run.
any apprecia
ness actuates the servant to
ble extent his acts are within the
Finally,
argues that
Just Brakes
employment.” Howard v. American Pa
“personal errand” was not
furtherance
per Stock
explained
of Just Brakes’ business. As
1975),
Civ.App.-Fort
Worth
above,
reformed
summary-judgment
evidence
(Tex.1975);
aff'd, 528
accord
prove
that Paul’s errand was for
does
Hardin,
Buildings,
Best
Inc. v.
Steel
Moreover,
purely personal purposes.
(Tex.Civ.App.-Tyler
summary-judgment evidence exists to indi-
n.r.e.); Dictaphone Corp.
writ ref 'd
v. Tor
cate
Just Brakes was indeed benefi-
realba,
(Tex.Civ.App.-
run.
ted
Paul’s breakfast
Just Brakes’
n.r.e.).
Houston
writ ref d
[14th Dist.]
corporate representative testified
a de-
Even if Paul
personally
(1)
benefited
position6 that
Brakes can com-
run,
degree by
some
his ac
his breakfast
plete
period
more
in a
time
work
shorter
(2)
tions could still be within the course and
present;
with more mechanics
Gilgon,
practice
using
Inc.
one employee
See
to obtain
Hart,
(Tex.App.
shop
breakfast for the entire
was common
(3)
denied)
locations;
get
at various Just Brakes
Corpus
(employ
Christi
done,
day’s
requires
work
a store
may
ee’s actions
still be within course and
mechanics;
minimal number of
it is
private
even if
mat
important
manager present
to have a
at all
errand);
ters are mixed with business
Tor
*6
times;
a reasonable
and
(“Conduct
realba,
may
520
at 872
S.W.2d
of me-
try
would
to reduce the number
scope
employment,
within the
al
be
missing
any given
chanics
at
time. Be-
part
purposes
to
the
though done
serve
benefited Just
practice
cause this routine
(cit
person.”)
of the servant or of a third
Brakes,
indirectly, Just Brakes has
albeit
(Second)
§
ing
Agency
Restatement
236
prove
to
that Paul’s conduct was
failed
(1958)); Josey-Miller
Sheppard,
v.
357
Co.
not in
purely personal errand that was
488,
(Tex.Civ.App.-Beaumont
490
business.
furtherance of Just Brakes’
writ)
1962,
(employee
no
still within course
scope
mingling
even when “there is a
the numerous cases
We also address
support
of the master’s
the
of its conten-
business with
servant’s
Just Brakes cites
business”).
of these cases
therefore hold that Just
tions laid out above.7 Each
We
benefitted,
activity
response
employer
that
In
to
use of this evi
of his
in an
Arbelaez's
dence,
“disputes
Just Brakes states that it
the
indirectly,
employer’s business. The
even
attempts to draw”
'inference[s]'
[Arbelaez]
Racing
American
closest case is Brown v.
corporate representative's
from Just Brakes'
734,
Inc.,
Equipment,
735
933
This, however,
every
testimony.
ignores that
1996,
writ),
App.-San
where an
Antonio
no
indulged
reasonable
must be
in fa
inference
employee
performed a
on his lunch break
any
vor of Arbelaez and
doubts resolved
Brown, however,
manager.
In
"favor” for
Co.,
Prop. Mgmt.
her favor. Nixon v. Mr.
exceeding
scope
employee was
of his
(Tex. 1985).
manager's
when the accident
authorization
The court held that the
occurred.
Id. at 736.
single
7. We
to find a
case in
have been unable
employee
was not within
jurisprudence
supports
propo
Texas
that
employment because there was
of his
employee is not within the
sition that an
employee
authorized
no evidence that the
when the
act
did. Id.
employee
express instructions
to
as he
carries out the
or from
commuting to
distinguishable.
v. Du-
volve
easily
See Gant
Mirror, Inc.,
work,
gas
mas Glass &
935 S.W.2d
where the reimbursement
writ)
(employ-
(Tex.App.-Amarillo
no
supporting a
money
only
was the
factor
break);
from lunch
Brown
commuting
ee
employee was within
contention that
Inc.,
Racing
Equip.,
v. American
See
the course
Antonio
(Tex.App.-San
S.W.2d 734
Co.,
Grocery
H.E. Butt
Wilson v.
writ)
scope of man-
(employee
no
exceeded
Christi
(Tex.App.-Corpus
“fa-
ager’s
performing
authorization when
writ)
(employee driving home fol
no
break);
for
while on lunch
J
vor”
for extra
lowing
compensated
work was
Salaiz,
Drilling
& C
Co. v.
office);
Power &
trip to
London
Texas
writ) (em-
Antonio
no
(Tex.App.-San
(Tex.App.
Light
ployee commuting
following
to work site
writ)
driving (employee
Dallas
dinner);
Lighting
&
Andrews Houston
job
compensat
site was
temporary
work at
Power,
(Tex.App.-Houston
tempo
ed for extra distance traveled
denied)
(employee
writ
[14th Dist.]
site). Here,
job
summary-judg
rary
lunch).
going to
None of these cases ad-
that Paul
only
ment evidence indicates not
dresses a situation where an
weekly
money
on a
gas
was reimbursed
employer’s request
an
complied with
basis,
asked
but also that Paul’s
benefítted,
run
indi-
an errand
even
errand on a routine
perform
Paul to
rectly,
business.
basis,
benefítted Just
and that
errand
Ellis,
Just Brakes also cites Mitchell v.
Brakes.
(Tex.App.-Fort
See id. Paul was with man his. ager’s request perform an errand review, every *7 our standard of Under benefítted Just Brakes. indulged in reasonable inference must be favor of Arbelaez and all doubts resolved
Finally,
two
for
Just Brakes cites
cases
summary-
Applying
in her favor.
that an
proposition
the
reim-
standard,
fact
ex-
judgment
genuine
issues
gas money
bursement of
to an
with-
ist as to whether Paul’s actions were
does not create a fact issue on course and
cases, too,
employment.
in
the course and
of his
of
These
in
in-
failed to dis-
easily distinguishable
they
are
Just Brakes has therefore
Ellis,
denied);
pet.
Drilling
J & C
Co.
8.
In Mitchell v.
the
deviated Worth
Salaiz,
delivery
purchase ciga-
his
duties to
(Tex.App.-San
from
636
v.
866 S.W.2d
rettes;
vehicle,
exiting
he crossed a
1993, writ).
after
special-
Antonio
Because the
negligently, causing an accident. 374
street
only applied
is
in commut
mission doctrine
(Tex.App.-Fort Worth
commuting,
but
cases and Paul was not
ref’d).
already
at work when his
in
run, we
structed him to make the breakfast
argues that Paul’s actions
9. Just Brakes also
unnecessary
engage
a
is
in
conclude that it
"special
a
mission” on be
did not constitute
See,
analysis.
e.g., Upton,
special-mission
See, e.g., Upton
Brakes.
v. Gan
half of Just
622; Salaiz,
Hosp. Wolff, 94 S.W.3d There is no evidence (Tex.2002). Thus, to manager right “the and extent of Paul’s had control liability under the common law the means and methods Paul’s breakfast vicarious is manager al testified that he did clearly policy pure run. Paul’s determination — any though Wolff, particular at not direct to take route simple.” Paul he him- policy get I to to McDonald’s and that public conclude employer’s not further busi- route. cause it did have taken a different self would ness). un- imagine any can I circumstances Nor have the would der which between the business The connection to and from
right got to control how picking up automobiles repairing merely Because Paul McDonald’s. was is tenuous at best. employees meal for picking up a meal for himself and co- not business personal, Meals are nature imagine possible I cannot what employees, Salaiz, Drilling Co. v. affairs. See J & C how Paul right his had to direct Antonio (Tex.App.-San “assign- accomplishing went about writ) 24-hour (despite being on no ment,” fairly if it could be characterized as vehicle, em employer’s driving call and assignment. an not in course and when ployee not, Furthermore, these facts do as lunch); An site from returning to work law, on all matter of create a fact issue Power, 820 Lighting v. Houston & drews court’s test prongs supreme three (Tex.App.-Houston [14th (1) asking whether the act was: within denied) (using company Dist.] authority given employee; to the general lunch is not in furtherance get vehicle to (2) employer’s in furtherance of the busi business). may it be in While ness; accomplishment employees to any interest have business’s object employee for which the efficiency, not functioning at full fed and employed. Kimbrough See Leadon v. Bros. or ef every activity promoting attendance (Tex. Lumber liability subject employer an to ficiency can 1972); Lines, Robertson Tank Inc. v. Van “in of its business. being furtherance” Cleave, (Tex.1971); more effi employee an will work Perhaps Kutac, Kobza v. if to leave his office ciently permitted he is denied); App.-Austin pet. see also waning a coffee in the after purchase Stores, Goodman, Minyard Food Inc. v. hours, an will perhaps noon or (Tex.2002). Summary after she provide better customer service judgment favor of Just Brakes was from up prescription a medical picked has proper because the evidence creates drugstore morning on her the corner prongs. fact issue on the second two an manager may A even “order” break. go to the doctor because
First, urges trip Arbelaez that Paul’s slowing his work coughing consistent McDonald’s was in furtherance of Just other at risk pace putting Brakes’ business because some evidence But an incidental benefit contagion. him to indicates that Paul’s asked an employer employee’s an from fetch The fact issue as to breakfast. to vicari open employer cannot errand whether Paul volunteered or was asked if activities. Even liability ous for all such go to McDonald’s is irrelevant because for the bene employee runs an errand Paul, we must resolve is whether question superior’s be superior fit of a such technician, could have an automobile brake hest, subject an em activity such cannot of Just Brakes’ been furtherance *9 liability if it is not to vicarious McDonald’s, ployer traveling while business employ in furtherance of the undertaken go by manager. if ordered to See even Brown, at See Brown, manag- er’s business. (despite at 736 fur obtaining breakfast Rarely will errand for 737. request, running personal er’s employer’s in be- ther an business. manager was not Here, urges using allowing pick up Arbelaez one em- one mechanic to breakfast ployee pick up for lunch for argues breakfast the others or the crew. Arbelaez of regular, furthered the business Just Brakes that it is the routine nature of the liable, minimizing employ- practice the number of absent that makes Brakes as Just ees, “thus providing acquiescence promotion enhanced customer its or even of the enabling employees practice implied approval service and to work indicates its of efficiently.” argument Kennedy more This relies on the run. breakfast See Ameri- testimony of deposition Lilly, David a can Nat’l Ins. 130 Tex. Brakes, (1937), corporate representative for in quoted Just Soto v. (1) who stated that “common HBE Corp., sense” would Seven Seventeen manager (Tex.App.-Houston dictate that a store not allow all [14th 205-06 Dist.] so, employees pet.). to take their fifteen-minute Even a “routine” occur- (2) time; impor- breaks at the same it is rence in still must be furtherance tant to have a at all manager present employer’s Kennedy, business. See (3) times; try a reasonable would S.W.2d at 366. to reduce the number of mechanics miss- In to furthering employer’s addition time; ing any given get a business, prong requires the third the act done, day’s a mini- requires work store accomplish object for which the mal Taking number of mechanics. all of Leadon, employee employed. was making this evidence and all reasonable 569; Cleave, S.W.2d at Van 468 S.W.2d at Arbelaez, inferences favor of such inci- employed as a brake tech- dental benefit to Just Brakes cannot sub- object nician. The for which he was em-
ject
liability
employ-
it to vicarious
for its
servicing
ployed was the
of automobiles.
negligence
making
ee’s
while
breakfast
Leadon,
(object
See
There are countless or personal by, among keep- errands other limbs). employer’s ing affairs from which an business or hanging falling lookout productivity efficiency arguably will There is no evidence that Paul em- However, ployed object feeding benefit. the test does not ask for the his co- workers, making whether the act of the benefitted sure that the office was rather, well-staffed, employer; obliging it asks whether the or even Therefore, requests manager. act was in furtherance of picking up business. Just Brakes’ business is the breakfast for his co-workers, servicing accomplishing Paul was not automobiles. Under these facts, picking up employ- object for the for which he was hired. breakfast ees, opposed picking up automobile inference making reasonable Even cars, parts repair for the does not fur- employed of Arbelaez that Paul was favor ther Just Brakes’ business. object “benefitting” general business, agree I cannot indicating again
Arbelaez retorts that evidence Brakes’ that such runs were “routine” that such “benefit” extends as far as em- breakfast can business supports allegation ployees being her that Paul was act- fed. Nor such far as one in the course and extend so running personal occurred errands for the entire Paul testified that breakfast runs just put can every day, depositions Lilly and the office so other all at once. that other Just more time or not be absent indicate hand, imagine I can valid Brakes locations have the same custom of On the other *10 in of, favor of Just say, manag- a law-firm court’s business benefit I dis- go Accordingly, respectfully file asking legal er’s one assistant Brakes. attorneys’ several of the motions at the sent. to save other assistants
courthouse they present that are han-
time and so may
dle other matters that arise. The the assis-
difference is the “errand”
tant is asked to do is a “business” errand. indicating
Arbelaez notes evidence usually be “reimbursed” for his would money expended picking up in gas break In re Brenda Lee LEWIN. It is not clear from the record fast. No. 03-04-00229-CV. him or whether Just Brakes reimbursed employees gave gas whether the other him Texas, Appeals Court of Yet, money. an employ reimbursement of Austin. mileage ee for is not sufficient to create May fact question regard with to whether the in the course and employment. H.E. See Wilson v. Butt Co., Grocery 1988, writ);
App.-Corpus Christi no Lon
don v. Light Texas Power & (Tex.App.-Dallas
writ). making Even the inference in favor Arbelaez Just Brakes reimbursed money runs, gas for the breakfast
Arbelaez still had the burden to create
fact issue on whether Paul engaged employment by
the course and
furthering accomplishing the business and
the business for which he was Many employers graciously
hired. allow personal
their to run errands
occasionally they while are “on the clock.”
That is not sufficient to create a fact issue
as to whether errand was
the course and picking up
Because food for himself and
his co-workers was not furtherance of
Just Brakes’ business and did not accom- object
plish any for which he was em-
ployed, as a matter of law Paul was not of his em-
ployment with Just Brakes when he was in the
involved automobile collision with
Arbelaez. I would affirm the district