Low, Ball & Lynch’s
WEEKLY
LAW RESUME
Duty
of Care - Course and Scope of Employment
Jason
Taylor v. Roseville Toyota, Inc.
(
Court of Appeal, Third
District
The interrelationship of
the legal theories involving the course and scope of employment and permissive
use of vehicles can become very complicated in settings where employees are
allowed use of company cars. This case exemplifies that
problem.
Derrick Lewis, an
employee of Roseville Toyota, Inc., was driving a car owned by Roseville Toyota
on a personal errand on his lunch break when he rear-ended a car stopped at a
stop light. The driver and passenger of the car, Jason and Amy Taylor, sued
Lewis and Roseville Toyota for personal injuries. A trial jury found that Lewis
was negligent, and, while he was not acting within the scope of his employment,
he was operating a company vehicle with permission at the time of the accident.
Lewis and Roseville Toyota were found liable for $277,662 in
damages.
Evidence at trial
indicated that Roseville Toyota kept the keys to its vehicles in a central
location that was attended by a key attendant. A written form had to be filled
out whenever a vehicle was taken. Lewis was a detailer for Roseville Toyota, and
part of his job involved moving vehicles and putting gas in them. However, the
employees were prohibited from personal use of the company vehicles, and had to
use the sign-out procedure when moving a vehicle. Lewis testified he told the
attendant, when he took the Roseville Toyota vehicle out on the day of the
accident, that he was going over to his mother’s house. He was under the
impression that, as long as he was given the key by the attendant, he had
permission to use the company vehicle. The jury was instructed that Roseville
Toyota could be liable if Lewis had permission to use the company vehicle. The
jury was told that implied permission to use the vehicle could exist if the
owner of the vehicle was an employer of the operator, if there was a custom or
practice of allowing employees to use company-owned vehicles, and if the owner
failed to monitor or supervise the use of the vehicles. Roseville Toyota
appealed the judgment.
The Court of Appeal
affirmed. Roseville Toyota primarily complained that the instruction given
regarding failing to monitor or supervise the use of the vehicles was
prejudicial in considering implied permission to use the vehicle. The Court of
Appeal rejected this argument, finding support in prior cases which have found
implied permission under such circumstances. The Court felt that a failure to
monitor use of the vehicles could be a relevant factor for determining
permission to use the vehicles. The Court indicated that an inference of
permission arose by virtue of the employer-employee relationship, which the
employer could overcome through other evidence. However, in evaluating all of
the evidence, a jury was entitled to consider whether the owner monitored or
supervised the use of the vehicles, such as by checking mileage and gasoline
records, to determine if there had been personal use of the
vehicle.
Further, there was
sufficient evidence to support the verdict. Lewis was given permission by the
employee supervising the vehicles to use the vehicle for a personal errand.
While there was no evidence of actual authority to give such permission, there
was sufficient evidence of ostensible authority for such permission. Ostensible
authority arises where a third party believes an agent possesses authority due
to the conduct of the employer. In this case, although Roseville Toyota had an
elaborate procedure for keeping track of its vehicles, if the person supervising
the keys gave an employee a key, that employee could reasonably believe, and a
jury could find, that there was implied permission to use the vehicle. Although
there was a company policy against personal use of the company vehicles, a jury
could reasonably have believed that
exceptions were made by the key
attendant. Therefore, substantial evidence existed to support a finding that the
key attendant had the authority to permit the use of a company vehicle for a
personal errand. Given the inference of permission from the employer-employee
relationship, the verdict was justified. The judgment was therefore affirmed in
favor of the plaintiffs.
COMMENT
This case exemplifies
the complicated issues that arise in permissive use questions when employees are
allowed to use company automobiles. Given the inferences that exist in favor of
permission, an employer must show a clear violation of
established procedures to prevail..
____
To order
a printed version of this analysis, or change
your subscription information, reply to this transmission. Information regarding
this and other WEEKLY LAW RESUME TM articles is available
from Raymond Coates at (650) 366-4000, [email protected] or at
WWW.LOWBALL.COM. The WEEKLY LAW RESUME TM is published fifty-two
times a year, and is a complimentary publication of LOW, BALL & LYNCH, Attorneys at Law, a Professional Corporation, with offices in