Robin Rogers was involved in a traffic accident at 34th and Peoria in which she was rear-ended by Jerry Stein, an employee of Vandeley Industries. Prior to the accident, Mr. Vandeley asked Mr. Stein to and make two deliveries on his way home. Vandeley Industries employs a deliveryman, but on that day, he was busy with another delivery and unable to make any additional deliveries. It was imperative that the deliveries be made because one of the customers was anticipating the arrival of his delivery for an event he was hosting at his home later that day. Mr. Stein agreed to make the deliveries. He was allowed to leave work a few minutes early for doing so. Mr. Stein traveled to an area near 35th and Riverside to make the first delivery. It was
…show more content…
The doctrine of respondeat superior holds that generally an employer is not liable for the acts of its employee unless the servant is acting with the scope of their employment at the time of the incident. Taylor v. Pate, 859 P.2d 1124 (Okla. Civ. App. 1993). In most instances, an employee traveling either to or from work is not considered to be acting within the scope of their employment. Id.; Skinner v. Braum’s Ice Cream Store, 890 P.2d 922 (Okla. 1995). However, the court has recognized exceptions to the “coming and going” rule. An employee is acting within the scope of employment when the employer instructs the employee to render a service or complete a task or if the trip would confer an incidental benefit to the employer and the employee has not completed the task. The location of the incident may provide further evidence to establish that the employee is acting under the direction of the employer if it occurs in a location that the employee would not have been in if not for the employer’s direction. Jerry Stein was acting within the scope of his employment when traveling from work because he acting under the direction of his employer when he was making the two deliveries to clients on his way home from work when he was involved in an automobile accident with Robin …show more content…
v. Burchette due to the fact that it presented facts similar to that of the Skinner case. In Haco, it was routine that members of a drilling crew car pool to work. The member of the team who was to drive for that day was expected to provide water and ice at the work site. On one morning, the driver who was responsible for driving the crew for that day picked up two members of the crew, procured the ice and water for the day and was on the way to the site when he was involved in accident. When the accident occurred the employee was not driving a vehicle owned by the employer, the work shift had not yet begun, and he was not being paid. However, the court held that the driver was acting within the scope of employment at the time of the accident. The court reasoned that because the water and ice the employee was delivering was essential to the workforce, the employee was conferring an incidental benefit upon the employer, and therefore, was acting within the scope of
The doctrine of respondeat superior holds that generally an employer is not liable for the acts of its employee unless the servant is acting with the scope of their employment at the time of the incident. Taylor v. Pate, 859 P.2d 1124 (Okla. Civ. App. 1993). In most instances, an employee traveling either to or from work is not considered to be acting within the scope of their employment. Id.; Skinner v. Braum’s Ice Cream Store, 890 P.2d 922 (Okla. 1995). However, the court has recognized exceptions to the “coming and going” rule. An employee is acting within the scope of employment when the employer instructs the employee to render a service or complete a task or if the trip would confer an incidental benefit to the employer and the employee has not completed the task. The location of the incident may provide further evidence to establish that the employee is acting under the direction of the employer if it occurs in a location that the employee would not have been in if not for the employer’s direction. Jerry Stein was acting within the scope of his employment when traveling from work because he acting under the direction of his employer when he was making the two deliveries to clients on his way home from work when he was involved in an automobile accident with Robin …show more content…
v. Burchette due to the fact that it presented facts similar to that of the Skinner case. In Haco, it was routine that members of a drilling crew car pool to work. The member of the team who was to drive for that day was expected to provide water and ice at the work site. On one morning, the driver who was responsible for driving the crew for that day picked up two members of the crew, procured the ice and water for the day and was on the way to the site when he was involved in accident. When the accident occurred the employee was not driving a vehicle owned by the employer, the work shift had not yet begun, and he was not being paid. However, the court held that the driver was acting within the scope of employment at the time of the accident. The court reasoned that because the water and ice the employee was delivering was essential to the workforce, the employee was conferring an incidental benefit upon the employer, and therefore, was acting within the scope of