Criteria for Respondeat Superior (Scope of Employment) Liability Succinctly Explained
The Second Department determined summary judgment was properly denied to the defendant employer. The employee was test driving a competitor’s car in connection with his job at a Mercedes dealership when the employee was involved in an accident. The Second Department determined the employer failed to demonstrate the employee was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. The court explained the relevant law:
Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer can be held vicariously liable for the torts committed by an employee acting within the scope of the employment” … . “An act is considered to be within the scope of employment if it is performed while the employee is engaged generally in the business of his [or her] employer, or if his [or her] act may be reasonably said to be necessary or incidental to such employment” … . “An employer, however, cannot be held vicariously liable for its employee’s alleged tortious conduct if the employee was acting solely for personal motives unrelated to the furtherance of the employer’s business at the time of the incident … . Zwibel v Midway Automotive Group, 2015 NY Slip Op 03154, 2nd Dept 4-15-15