You are here: / / DEFENDANT EMPLOYEE WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN...
,

DEFENDANT EMPLOYEE WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN THE REAR-END COLLISION OCCURRED; DEFENDANT WAS DRIVING HIS OWN CAR TO WORK.

Defendant, Frasier, was driving to work in his own car when he was involved in a rear-end collision with plaintiff. Plaintiff sued defendant’s employer under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted. The defendant was not acting within the scope of his employment when the accident occurred:

As a general rule, an employee driving to and from work is not acting in the scope of his [or her] employment . . . Although such activity is work motivated, the element of control is lacking” … . “Although the issue whether an employee is acting within the scope of his or her employment generally is one of fact, it may be decided as a matter of law in a case such as this, in which the relevant facts are undisputed” … .

Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, the mere fact that Frasier carried his own tools in his vehicle was insufficient to “transform the use of the automobile into a special errand [for defendant] or an extension of the employment” … . Moreover, the fact that Frasier drove a coworker to work that morning is of no significance because he was not directed to do so, and the carpool was based on the employees’ “personal arrangement” … . Finally, the fact that defendant paid for lodging for Frasier while he was at a remote work site also does not require a different finding inasmuch as defendant did not require its employees to stay at the procured hotel, and the employees did not have “to inform defendant of their whereabouts [outside of working hours]” … . Figura v Frasier, 2016 NY Slip Op 07525, 4th Dept 11-10-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (DEFENDANT EMPLOYEE WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN THE REAR-END COLLISION OCCURRED; DEFENDANT WAS DRIVING HIS OWN CAR TO WORK)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (NEGLIGENCE, RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR, DEFENDANT EMPLOYEE WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN THE REAR-END COLLISION OCCURRED; DEFENDANT WAS DRIVING HIS OWN CAR TO WORK)/RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (DEFENDANT EMPLOYEE WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN THE REAR-END COLLISION OCCURRED; DEFENDANT WAS DRIVING HIS OWN CAR TO WORK)

/by
You might also like
DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENCE DESIGNED TO RAISE A FEIGNED QUESTION OF FACT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF A COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
FATHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY THE VISITATION ORDER, WHICH ALLOWED VISITATION AS MUTUALLY AGREED, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING, FATHER ALLEGED THE MUTUALLY AGREED VISITATION HAD BECOME UNTENABLE (FOURTH DEPT).
THE JURY’S FINDING THAT THE VICTIM SUFFERED “SERIOUS INJURY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ASSAULT SECOND STATUTE WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).
DIVORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WHICH WAS SILENT ON THE DEFINITION OF MAINTENANCE WAS INTERPRETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF MAINTENANCE IN DOMESTIC RELATIONS LAW 236 (FOURTH DEPT).
Police-Monitored, Recorded Phone Conversation Between Minor Victim and Defendant Was Admissible
Fraud and Breach of Fiduciary Causes of Action Dismissed as Duplicative
WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID AND GUILTY PLEA VACATED BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE PERIOD OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION (FOURTH DEPT). ​
UNIVERSITY STUDENTS WERE CHARGED WITH VIOLATIONS OF THE CODE OF CONDUCT STEMMING FROM THE RELEASE OF VIDEO CLIPS DEPICTING SKITS PERFORMED AT A ROAST HELD BY A FRATERNITY; THE SKITS INCLUDED RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS SLURS AND SIMULATED SEXUAL ACTIVITY AND VIOLENCE; THE 4TH DEPARTMENT HELD THAT THE DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES COMPORTED WITH THE RULES, THE CODE VIOLATIONS WERE SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE AND THE SANCTIONS DID NOT SHOCK ONE’S SENSE OF FAIRNESS; A STRONG DISSENT ARGUED THE CODE PROVISION PURPORTING TO PROHIBIT SPEECH WHICH “THREATENS” THE “MENTAL HEALTH” OF A PERSON IS SO VAGUE THAT IT CAN NOT SUPPORT A CONVICTION (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

[gravityform id=”1″ title=”false” description=”false” tabindex=”2″]

Copyright © 2022 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT CONTRACTOR CREATED AN... CLAIMANT’S CONNECTION TO A CORPORATION WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT FINDING...