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)

You might also like
AT THE TIME OF THE COLLISION, THE SHERIFF’S DEPUTY WAS ENGAGED IN AN EMERGENCY OPERATION AND DID NOT ACT WITH RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE ORDER ADDRESSING A MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT WAS ISSUED AFTER JUDGMENT AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE SUBSUMED IN THE JUDGMENT, THE ORDER IS APPEALABLE; PRECEDENT TO THE CONTRARY OVERRULED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE CAUSE OF ACTION FOR LEAD-PAINT EXPOSURE ACCRUED, THEREFORE THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON THE GROUND THAT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD EXPIRED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE SENTENCING COURT INDICATED IT COULD NOT DEVIATE FROM ITS SENTENCING AGREEMENT WITH THE PEOPLE BUT SENTENCING COURTS HAVE DISCRETION; SENTENCE VACATED AND MATTER REMITTED FOR RE-SENTENCING (FOURTH DEPT).
COUNTY COURT DID NOT FOLLOW THE PROPER PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING WHETHER DEFENDANT IS ELIGIBLE FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS; MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).
PETITION SEEKING MEDICAL ASSISTANCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED BASED UPON THE INABILITY TO DETERMINE THE FINANCIAL RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO THE NURSING HOME RESIDENT’S ESTRANGED WIFE, COURT MAY NOT CONSIDER THEORY NOT RAISED BEFORE THE AGENCY (FOURTH DEPT).
Plaintiff Need Not Exclude Every Other Possible Cause of an Accident to Demonstrate Proximate Cause
Question of Fact About Whether Private Entity Managing Public Funds Can Recoup Payments Which Were Above Minimum Fees Required by the Medicare Fee Schedule

Categories

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

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
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...