How absurd!!! In brief, employee uses personal car to make sales calls. Earlier in the day she had transported some co-workers to a seminar. She returned those co-workers to the main office and went home. On her way home she decided to stop for some frozen yogurt and go to a yoga class. While turning into the parking lot of the yogurt shop she hit a motorcyclist.
The original court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment as the employee was clearly not in the course and scope of employment. The court felt the coming and going rule did not apply because of the “required vehicle exception” – that is, this particular employee was mandated to use her own car.
How it is a group of supposibly intelligent, law school educated individuals could find that buying frozen yogurt on the way to a yoga class is even remotely close to giving the employer an incidental benefit absolutely confounds me!!!
See Moradi v. Marsh USA (09/13/2013)
Kevin Driscoll 