In Newland v. County of Los Angeles, published June 18, 2018, the Second District Court of Appeal, Division 5 reversed denial of a defense motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict in an auto accident case. The driver was a county public defender who worked in the Norwalk courthouse, and commuted from Long Beach. He needed his personal vehicle for work from time to time, when trying cases in branch courts, meeting clients in jail, and inspecting crime scenes. On days when he needed his car, he brought it. When he did not, and public transit was available, he took it. On the day of the accident, he did not need his car for work. Convenient public transit was not available from his home in Long Beach. Driving from the courthouse home at the end of the day, he was involved in the subject accident. The jury found that the driver was driving in the scope of his duty, and awarded damages against the employer county.
The court reversed the finding that he was driving in the scope of his duties, because no evidence supported it. Generally an employee is not acting within the scope of his duties when driving his personal vehicle to and from work. The exceptions are where the employee is using his personal vehicle for work purposes, and where the employee's use of his personal vehicle provides his employer with a benefit. Here, while the driver occasionally used his personal vehicle for work purposes, he did not have to do so that day. He did not have any emergency situations that required him to have a vehicle available. There was no evidence that he was required to drive to and from work on the day of the accident for work purposes. Driving to and from work was not driving within the scope of his employment.
The court split on whether the case should be remanded to determine whether the driver's use of his vehicle benefited the county. The majority ruled no remand was necessary. There was no evidence that the county received a benefit from the driver's use of his car to drive to and from work on a day when he did not need his vehicle available for work purposes. A dissenting justice opined that the benefit issue should go to the jury.
Comments