Car Accident, Employment Law, Personal Injury
The short answer is: it depends. There are a number of factors which determine whether an employer can be held liable for a car accident caused by their employee. In most cases, it is more probable than not that an employer will held accountable for their employee’s actions. However, there are proactive steps employers can take to minimize the likelihood of accidents happening on the clock. In other cases, employees will be held solely accountable for their actions.
Employers can attempt to shield themselves from liability stemming from an employee’s actions by being proactive.
In general, employer liability will fall under one of the two categories: Respondeat Superior or negligence. Most employer/employee relationships fall under the doctrine of Respondeat Superior, which basically means the superior in the relationship is responsible for the actions of anyone they oversee. Similar to vicarious liability, the employer is responsible for the conduct of the people they choose to employ. An employer can be considered negligent for a number of reasons, such as hiring someone who will travel as part of their job and failing to make sure he or she has a clean driving record. Negligent supervision of an employee who is traveling can also open an employer up to liability for an employee’s accident. Employers have a duty to ensure their employees follow any internal safety regulations or policies; comply with state and federal driving safety laws while operating a vehicle; and monitor whether the employee exhibits reasonable care when performing a task in the scope of employment.
If an accident occurs when an employee is performing a duty related to work, even tangentially, the employer will likely be vicariously liable for any damages. Determining whether an employee’s accident occurred in the scope of employment depends on what they were doing at the time of the accident. The scope of employment covers all actions of an employee which are in the interest of the employer, including travel. Commuting to and from work is typically not considered to be within the scope of employment; however, if the employee was given a task to do on their way home from work, the employer may be liable. If the employee was performing a task assigned by a superior and got into an accident, the employer would most likely be held accountable.
There are exceptions known as “frolic” and “detour” which may release employers from liability. When an employee is driving for work-related reasons and deviates from the course in pursuit of a personal matter they considered to be on a “frolic” and not acting within the scope of employment. Employers are typically not vicariously liable for accidents which occur while the employee is on a frolic. Employees reenter the scope of employment when they return to the work-related course. After the frolic is over, employers will likely be liable for any accidents that occur. Alternatively, if an employee is driving for a work-related task and takes a minor detour—perhaps stopping for a cup of coffee—and gets into an accident, this is referred to as a detour. When an employee takes a detour from the work duties it is less severe than a frolic, and it is still very likely employers will be held liable for damages in an accident that occurs.
Some states, such as California, have a modified “scope of employment” when an employee is involved in a car accident—even if the employee was not working at the time. In one case, the courts used California Vehicle Code section 17150 to assign liability to the employer. In some instances, the employers will have company cars that they permit—or in some instances, require—employees to use for work-related tasks. However, if the employer does not make it clear that cars are for company use only, and fail to enforce this rule strictly, they may be held liable for damages caused by an off-duty employee in a company car.
Employers can attempt to shield themselves from liability stemming from an employee’s actions by being proactive. Implementing safety rules and ensuring they are followed can play an integral role in whether accidents occur. Performing background checks and drug testing will increase the likelihood of hiring qualified and responsible employees, thereby increasing the chances that employee drivers will act appropriately and within the realm of the law. Employers should keep records of any traffic citations employees receive and make a determination as to whether an employee is capable of exercising reasonable caution while driving. If the manner of the business involves a considerable amount of driving or trucking, logs of hours driven should be kept. A maximum number of hours a driver can complete in a given timeframe can help to reduce the potential for accidents.
Pressure, or perceived pressure, in the workplace on an employee can also contribute to accidents. If an employee feels pressured to complete tasks in a certain time frame, they may rush and be less diligent in paying attention to surrounding traffic or pedestrians and fail to follow the rules of the road. Maintaining a more relaxed work environment and not putting excess pressure on employees can help avoid these problems.
A number of factors go into determining whether an employer can be held liable for damages caused by an employee’s car accident. If the employee was not at fault, there’s not much of an issue. If the employee is at fault, the time, place, and manner of the accident will all contribute to the determination of where liability falls.
About the Author: Glenn Phillips owns and operates Phillips Law Firm in Washington. With almost 30 years of experience, Mr. Phillips specializes in the litigation of personal injury, product liability, disability, employee rights, and defective drug/device cases.
Originally published on LawyerCentral by Glenn Phillips on March 22, 2013 Read the original (Internet Archive).