The question in this civil case involved whether a triable issue of fact exists regarding when a driver is "on the job" even when in his own vehicle.
Here, the driver caused serious injuries to another who sued him and the driver's employer (under a "respondent superior" theory to get at the deeper pockets). Both parties thereafter filed separate summary judgment motions, claiming that the issue of whether the driver was "on the job" at the time was a matter of law.
The trial court ruled in favor of the employer of the driver, granting summary motion and stating that the driver was not within the course and scope of his employment at the time, basically, because he was not issued a company car and was driving his own private vehicle.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal, in an unpublished decision, reversed, ruling that there WAS a triable issue of fact here as to whether the driver was on the job at the time since - under the possible facts -- the employer could be found to have forced the employee to use his own car by limiting his options for work-related transportation.
The employee/driver was a maintenance man required to travel from job site to job site. While the employer never authorized him to use his own vehicle for company business, the employer had only one vehicle for 10 employees to use!
That, the appellate court ruled, created a triable issue of fact as to whether use of the private vehicle was still within the scope of the driver's employment.
The case is Holsome v. Exel, Inc..
To read the full decision,
PLEASE CLICK HERE.
- Help for the Injured Worker
