Negligence Action Against Driver’s Employer Can Go Forward

Takeaway: Under the doctrine of vicarious liability, or “respondeat superior,” an employer may be held vicariously liable for wrongful acts committed by an employee within the scope of employment.

Where there was conflicting evidence as to whether a driver was working for an employer when the driver caused a car accident, the person whose car was hit could proceed with his negligence action against the employer, a California appeals court ruled.

The trial court erred in dismissing the action before trial after incorrectly concluding that the evidence clearly showed that the driver was not working for the employer when the collision occurred. Rather, the evidence was in dispute, and the case should have been allowed to proceed to trial, the court said.

The plaintiff filed a complaint against the employer and the driver for negligence, alleging that the driver’s vehicle rear-ended his vehicle while it was stopped at a red light. The plaintiff claimed that the driver was driving the vehicle in the course of his employment with the employer, a door and window installer, when the collision occurred.

The employer moved to have the case against it dismissed before trial, arguing that it was not liable for the driver’s conduct because the driver was not working for the employer in any capacity whatsoever at the time of the accident, even though he was wearing a shirt branded with the employer’s logo. The plaintiff argued that the driver was the company’s employee. He said that the driver told him immediately after the accident that he was on his way to a job and that he worked for the employer. The plaintiff argued that paychecks issued by the employer showed that the driver was working for the company on the day of the accident.

The trial court dismissed the action before trial, noting that the undisputed facts showed that the driver was not working for the employer when the accident occurred. The plaintiff appealed.

The appeals court first noted that the issue presented was narrow: Was the driver working for the employer in any capacity when the collision occurred?

The complaint alleged that the driver was driving the vehicle in the course of his employment with the employer when the accident occurred, but the employer presented evidence that the driver was driving his own vehicle that day. The driver testified at his deposition that he worked for himself and considered himself an independent contractor. At their depositions, both the driver and an officer of the employer testified that the driver was not working for the employer that day.

On the day of the accident, the driver was wearing a T-shirt with the employer’s name on it. The employer argued that the driver’s attire did not mean he was working for the employer that day. The driver testified at his deposition that he had T-shirts from several companies and wore them to work without regard to the company he was doing work for that day. The employer’s officer testified that drivers are not required to wear branded T-shirts while working for the employer.

The plaintiff submitted a declaration recounting the events of the accident. Immediately after the collision, the plaintiff and the driver pulled over to the shoulder of the road to exchange insurance information. The driver apologized for running into the plaintiff. He said he was on his way to a job and looking down at his phone for GPS directions, so he did not see the plaintiff’s vehicle stopped in front of him. The plaintiff noticed that the back of the driver’s T-shirt had the name of the employer on it. The plaintiff pointed to the shirt and asked the driver if that was his employer, and the driver responded affirmatively. The plaintiff took a photo of the back of the shirt, and a copy of the photo was submitted as an exhibit.

In dismissing the case before trial, the lower court reasoned that the driver’s statements after the accident did not contradict the deposition testimony. But the appellate court ruled that the driver’s statement and the photo were enough to raise a triable issue as to whether the driver was working for the employer when the accident occurred.

The conversation between the plaintiff and the driver occurred immediately after the accident. After explaining that he was on his way to a job, the driver—without qualification—stated that the company identified on his T-shirt was his employer. Based on the context of the conversation, a jury could reasonably infer that the driver was telling the plaintiff he was headed to a job for the employer.

In short, the court said, the sole issue was whether the driver was working for the employer at the time of the accident. Because the plaintiff’s declaration raised a triable issue for the jury on this question, the case should not have been dismissed before trial, the court concluded.

Roman v. Justin Mayall Installations, Calif. Ct. App., No. G062627 (April 15, 2024).

Joanne Deschenaux, J.D., is a freelance writer in Annapolis, Md.