Lundberg v. State, 25 N.Y.2d 467 (1969)
An employee driving to and from work is generally not acting within the scope of their employment for purposes of respondeat superior, even if the employer provides reimbursement for travel expenses, unless the employer exercises control over the employee’s activities during the commute.
Summary
Lundberg’s husband died when his car was struck by Sandilands, a state employee, who was driving from his home to a temporary work assignment. The Court of Appeals addressed whether the State could be held liable for Sandilands’ negligence under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The Court held that the State was not liable because Sandilands was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. The court reasoned that the commute was primarily for Sandilands’ personal convenience, and the State did not exert sufficient control over his travel to establish liability.
Facts
Sandilands, a Senior Engineering Technician for the New York State Department of Public Works, was permanently based in Buffalo but temporarily assigned to a project near Salamanca, about 80 miles away. He stayed in a hotel in Salamanca during the week and drove home to Buffalo on weekends. The State reimbursed him for living expenses and provided a mileage allowance for his travel. On a Monday morning, while driving back to the reservoir after a holiday weekend, Sandilands negligently caused a car accident that resulted in Lundberg’s husband’s death.
Procedural History
Lundberg sued Sandilands and the State for wrongful death. The claim against Sandilands was settled. The case against the State proceeded to trial, and the claimant received a judgment in her favor. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment. The State appealed to the New York Court of Appeals by permission.
Issue(s)
Whether the State of New York is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the negligence of its employee, Sandilands, who caused a fatal car accident while commuting to a temporary work assignment, where the State reimbursed his travel expenses.
Holding
No, because Sandilands was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident, as the commute was primarily for his personal convenience, and the State did not exercise sufficient control over his travel.
Court’s Reasoning
The court applied the doctrine of respondeat superior, which holds an employer liable for an employee’s negligence when the employee is acting within the scope of their employment. The court stated that an employee acts within the scope of employment when they are furthering their duties to the employer and the employer has, or could have, control over the employee’s activities. “An employee acts in the scope of his employment when he is doing something in furtherance of the duties he owes to his employer and where the employer is, or could be, exercising some control, directly or indirectly, over the employee’s activities”.
The court noted the general rule that commuting to and from work is not considered within the scope of employment due to the lack of employer control. It distinguished this case from exceptions where an employee uses their car in furtherance of work, remaining under the employer’s control throughout the day. Here, Sandilands’ commute was primarily for his personal desire to return home. The court emphasized that the State lacked control over Sandilands’ activities during his commute. The court rejected the argument that the mileage allowance established control, deeming it unfair to impose liability based solely on expense reimbursement. “To hold that by simply paying his travel expenses to his home the State opened itself to liability for any tortious act he might commit while traveling between Buffalo and the work site would be patently unfair and beyond the scope of the doctrine of respondeat superior”.
The court distinguished worker’s compensation cases, where the focus is on job-related activity regardless of fault, from respondeat superior cases, which require employer control. It cited Natell v. Taylor-Fichter Steel Constr. Co., a similar case where an employee’s travel between work sites was deemed outside the scope of employment despite expense reimbursement. The court determined that, as a matter of law, Sandilands was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident.