Caldwell v. A.R.B., Inc.

Brief Fact Summary.

A.R.B. argued that Brandon was not acting within the scope of employment when he got into a car accident with Caldwell on his way home from work.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

An employee is out of the scope of employment when commuting to and from work.

Facts.

Brandon was a pipefitter for A.R.B. Inc. (A.R.B.) and was paid a daily travel allowance for use of their private cars to get to work, as public transportation was unavailable. Brandon got into a car accident with Caldwell on his way from work and Caldwell sued. A.R.B. argued that Brandon was not acting within the scope of employment when he got into a car accident with Caldwell on his way home from work.  The trial court granted judgment to A.R.B.

Issue.

Whether an employee is out of the scope of employment when commuting to and from work?

Held.

Yes. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Brandon was not within the scope of employment on his commute home from work.

Discussion.

Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer is responsible for a tort committed by an employee only if the tort is committed within the scope of employment. An employee is out of the scope of employment when commuting to and from work.