Lundberg v. State of New York, 25 N.Y.2d 467 (1969)
An employer is not liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the tortious acts of an employee who is driving his own vehicle for personal reasons, even if the employee is subject to being on-call for work-related emergencies.
Summary
This case addresses the scope of employer liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Richard Oliver, Jr., a reporter for the Daily News, was involved in a car accident while driving his own car on his day off. Although Oliver was subject to being on-call for emergencies, he was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. The plaintiffs argued that because Oliver was always potentially subject to being called upon to perform his duties, the employer should be liable. The New York Court of Appeals rejected this argument, holding that merely being on-call does not subject an employer to liability for an employee’s actions outside the scope of employment. The court reversed the Appellate Division’s order and dismissed the complaint against the employer.
Facts
Richard Oliver, Jr. was employed as a reporter for the Daily News. Oliver’s regular work week was Sunday through Thursday, and he was on-call at all times in the event of emergency news matters. On Saturday, December 20, 1969, while on his regularly scheduled day off and driving his own automobile, Oliver was involved in an accident. At the time of the accident, Oliver was engaged in his own personal affairs and was not performing any work-related duties.
Procedural History
The plaintiffs commenced negligence actions against Oliver and his employer, the Daily News. The Supreme Court initially ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s decision. The Daily News appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, which reversed the Appellate Division’s order and dismissed the complaint against the employer.
Issue(s)
Whether an employer can be held liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the tortious acts of an employee committed while the employee is driving his own automobile for personal reasons, even if the employee is subject to being on-call for work-related emergencies.
Holding
No, because to bring the doctrine of respondeat superior into play, the employee must be performing some act in furtherance of a duty he owes the employer, and the employer must be able to exercise some control, directly or indirectly, over his activity.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that the doctrine of respondeat superior requires that the employee be performing some act in furtherance of a duty owed to the employer and that the employer have some degree of control over the employee’s activities. The court stated that “[t]o bring this doctrine into play the employee must be performing some act in furtherance of a duty he owes the employer and where the employer is, or could be, exercising some control, directly or indirectly, over his activity.” In this case, Oliver was driving his own car for personal reasons on his day off and was not performing any duties for his employer at the time of the accident. The court rejected the argument that Oliver’s on-call status was sufficient to establish liability, finding that “[t]o hold that by being subject to call in case of an emergent need for his services would subject the appellant to liability at a time when the employee was engaged in his own affairs on a regular day off from work, would be patently beyond the scope of the doctrine of respondeat superior.” The court also dismissed the plaintiffs’ argument that additional discovery might uncover a basis for liability, noting that the defendant had already provided extensive information about the employer-employee relationship. The court effectively limited the scope of respondeat superior, especially concerning employees who have some level of autonomy in performing their work. It emphasized the necessity for the employee to be actively serving the employer’s interests and for the employer to exert control over the specific activity that led to the tort for liability to attach. This prevents extending liability too broadly based on remote or speculative connections to employment.