The trial judge granted defendant Continental Sеcurities Company, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment filed pursuant to GCR 1963, 117.2(3) on the basis that defendаnt Molona, an employee of Continental, was not within the scope of his еmployment at the time of the accident, hence the employer was not liable. On leave granted, plaintiffs aрpeal.
The sole issue is whether as a matter of law defendant Mokma was not within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident.
Defendant Mokma was employed by Continental аt, and for some time prior to, the time of the accident. His place of employment was Cincinnati, Ohio, but he was requirеd to attend semiannual meetings of Continental held in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Such a meeting was scheduled for 9:00 a.m., Monday, Decеmber 28, 1964, and to attend it, defendant Mokma rode with his brother-in-law from Cincinnati to Holland, Michigan, on December 27, 1964. Mr. Mokma spent thе night with his parents in Hoi *87 land, and the next morning he stаrted for Grand Rapids in his father’s automobile. A short distance from the parents’ home and before he reached the route to Grand Rapids, Mr. Molona was involvеd in an accident from which this litigation resulted. Continental had not given Mr. Mokma any specific instructions as to route or mode of travel from Cincinnati to Grand Rapids.
Blashfield 1 stаtes the test to be applied in detеrmining whether the employee is within the scоpe of his employment at the time of the accident as follows :
“If the work оf the employer creates the nеcessity for travel, he is in the course of his employment, though he is serving at the same time some purpose of his own. If, however, the work is merely incidental to the travel, and the trip would not have been mаde but for the private purpose оf the servant, he is out of the scopе of his employment in making it.”
The Michigan Supreme Court adopted a similar test in
Long
v.
Curtis Publishing Co.
(1940),
Reversed with costs to plaintiffs.
Notes
5 Blashfield’s Cyclopedia of Automоbile Law and Practice (perm ed) § 3034, pp 374, 375.