Miller v. Reiman-Wuerth Co.

Wyoming Supreme Court · Torts

Tortsvicarious liabilityscope of employmentrespondeat superiorsummary judgmentscope of employmentrespondeat superiorvicarious liability

Facts

Grandpre was employed by Reiman-Wuerth as a carpenter on a construction site in Cheyenne. He asked permission to leave work to deposit his paycheck at a local bank before 3:00 p.m. so his outstanding checks would not be dishonored, and his supervisor granted permission under the company's policy allowing unpaid time off for personal errands, with the expectation that employees would take only the time necessary and then return. Grandpre drove his own car to the bank, made the deposit, and was involved in a collision while returning to the jobsite. He had never used his own car on the employer's business; when driving for the employer's business he was furnished a company-owned vehicle.

Issue

Whether there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Grandpre was acting within the scope of his employment when the collision occurred, so that Reiman-Wuerth could be held vicariously liable. More specifically, the question was whether an unpaid personal errand, permitted by the employer and expected to be completed promptly, could be treated as within the scope of employment.

Rule

Conduct is within the scope of employment only if it is of the kind the employee is employed to perform, occurs substantially within authorized time and space limits, and is actuated at least in part by a purpose to serve the employer. A person is acting within the scope of employment if, at the time of the accident, the employee is engaged in furthering the employer's business interests and the employer has the right to control the details of the work and to discharge the employee for failing to follow orders without incurring liability. Although scope of employment is ordinarily a jury question, it becomes a question of law when but one reasonable inference can be drawn from the undisputed facts.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Alvarez worked as a warehouse clerk for Prairie Crest Supply on a renovation project in Denver. During her shift, she got permission to leave on unpaid time to pick up a prescription for herself, drove her own car to the pharmacy, and struck a pedestrian while driving back to the warehouse; the company generally allowed brief personal errands because it believed flexible scheduling improved morale and expected employees to return as soon as possible.

Is Prairie Crest Supply most likely vicariously liable for Nina’s accident?

Explanation. The majority rule requires that, at the time of the accident, the employee be furthering the employer’s business interests and be actuated at least in part by a purpose to serve the employer. A purely personal errand on unpaid time does not become within the scope of employment merely because the employer permits it, values employee morale, or expects the employee to return promptly. Vehicle ownership was a relevant fact in the case, but not the sole reason for the result. (Derived from Miller v. Reiman-Wuerth Co. (n.d.).)