A Big Win for California Employers: The Court of Appeal Limits the Circumstances Under Which an Employer Can Be Held Vicariously Liable For Accidents that Occur During an Employee’s Workplace Commute

By: Dana M. Enyart, Esq.

Should an employer be held vicariously liable for injuries arising out of an employee’s typical commute to or from the workplace? Most would agree that the logical and fundamentally fair answer to this question is “no”. As such, California law holds that an employee is generally not acting within the course and scope of employment while traveling to and from the workplace. However, this legal precept, better known as the “going and coming” rule is like most rules in that it is subject to exceptions.

One such exception which was recently taken up by the California Court of Appeal in Newland v. County of Los Angeles, 2018 S.O.S. 3075, is an exception known as the “required vehicle exception” which instructs that an employee’s typical commute to and from work is within the course and scope of employment under the following circumstances:

       

If you find yourself wondering what in the world this actually means, you’re not alone. This ambiguous and broad exception leaves quite a bit open to interpretation. For instance, amongst other ambiguities, what actually counts as an “incidental” or “direct” benefit? Certainly, reasonable minds may differ as was the case with the trial court and the Court of Appeal in Newland v. County of Los Angeles, where each interpreted the practical application of this largely ambiguous exception differently.

Namely, in Newland v. County of Los Angeles, the Court of Appeal reversed a $14,000,000.00 judgment against Los Angeles County arising out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred during the Los Angeles County deputy public defender, Donald Prigo’s drive home from work. On his commute home, Mr. Prigo was turning into the post office to deposit his rent check when he struck a vehicle, causing that vehicle to veer off the road and injure the plaintiff pedestrian. The “required vehicle exception” was applied under the instant circumstances and Los Angeles County was found vicariously liable for Plaintiff’s injuries on the grounds that the County impliedly required public defenders to have cars at work in order to travel to courthouses, interview clients in jail, or visit crime scenes.

The Court of Appeal reversed this decision holding that the exception did NOT apply on the grounds that there was no evidence that the County required public defenders to have vehicles, nor any evidence the public defender needed a car on the day of the accident. The Court reasoned that Mr. Prigo had the option of using public transportation, and although he did often use his vehicle for work-related purposes, he did not use his vehicle for any such purpose on the day of the incident.

In its ruling, the Court of Appeal reeled in the potentially far-reaching implications of this vague exception and effectively narrowed its application. Unless the Supreme Court happens to see things differently, this ruling should lessen the likelihood that liability will be imputed upon employers for injuries arising out of an employee’s work commute. Namely, liability is unlikely in scenarios where the employer cannot rightfully be said to have directly benefitted or relied upon an employee’s vehicle use and thus accepted any associated liability as a cost of doing business.

Dana M. Enyart earned her undergraduate degree from University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) where she majored in Philosophy. She received her Juris Doctorate Degree from Loyola Law School, Los Angeles. While in law school, Dana was a member of Loyola’s Civil Litigation Concentration Program. Upon graduation, she was selected as a Fellow of the American Board of Trial Advocates.

Since her admittance to the California State Bar, Dana has acquired extensive litigation experience in various fields including personal injury, insurance defense, motor vehicle collisions, catastrophic injury, wrongful death, and premises liability.

Bradley & Gmelich LLP is a proud sponsor of the upcoming LEAPS (Law Enforcement and Private Security) Education Symposium scheduled to take place September 12, 2018 at The Historic Orpheum Theater in Los Angeles.

Congratulations to Partner Tom Gmelich on his outstanding Motion for Summary Judgment win. Plaintiff, a construction worker, fell approximately twenty feet from a commercial building through a hole in a roof that was improperly covered with plywood and tarp.  Plaintiff suffered catastrophic injuries and was airlifted from the scene. Plaintiff sued our client, a large automotive center and its general partner, who leased the building where the incident occurred. Plaintiff also sued the general contractor and several other subcontractors. We prepared and filed a Motion for Summary Judgment based on the Privette and Toland line of cases. Plaintiff did not oppose the motion, however, two of the co-defendant subcontractors opposed the Motion on the grounds that our clients purportedly engaged in conduct that affirmatively contributed to the accident.

On June 6, 2018, the Court issued its tentative ruling denying the Motion for Summary Judgment. However, at the oral argument, we argued that there was no evidence to support any theory that our clients engaged in affirmative conduct to cause the incident, that the opposing co-defendant subcontractors had taken testimony out of context in support of their opposition, and that the opposing co-defendant subcontractors had even gone so far as to introduce erroneous factual information in their oppositions. After hearing oral argument, the Court took the matter under submission and subsequently reversed its tentative ruling granting the Motion for Summary Judgment citing too much of the arguments that we raised in our moving and reply papers. Congratulations to Tom for a big win!

Congratulations to litigation assistant Debbie Camara, on the birth of her fifth grandchild! Emma Martinez was born July 21, 2018 and was a healthy 8 pounds, 1 ounce and 22 inches long. We wish the best to Debbie and her entire family!

Congratulations to B&G Administrative Manager, Cheryl Davis and her adorable dog Comet for their first place win at the Crescenta Valley Dog Park Fifth District Fun Photo Contest. Way to go Comet!

Bradley & Gmelich LLP celebrates the summer in a festive luau style!