V exceptions to scope of employment respondeat

v. Exceptions to Scope of Employment (Respondeat SUperior):
1. Going and Coming Rule:
a. Under the going and coming rule, an employee going to and
from work is ordinarily considered outside of the scope of
employment so that the employer is not liable .
b. Unless:
i. Where the employee is on call as long as the particular
tortious act was otherwise within the scope of
employment
ii. Where the employer requires the employee to drive his or
her personal vehicle to work so that the vehicle may be
used for work related tasks
iii. where employer, either by general policy or specific
directive , instructs the employee to carry out some job
related errand during the commute.

iv. Where commute serves a dual purpose for both employee
and employer.
c. When commute involves some special hazard (Distance alone is
not a special hazard)
2. Frolic and Detour:
a. The employee who, during working hours , goes to a place not
associated with employment for a purpose not associated with
employment.
b. Frolic: A personal mission (Not liable)
i. Frolic ends when an employee is once again performing
assigned work and taking actions incidental to it, or when
an employee has taken action consistent with once again
assuming work.
c. Detour: Trivial departures from the job (May be vicariously
liable)
d. Jury Question
e. Reentry into employment:
i. (1) Employee must have formulated an intent to act in
furtherance of the employers business; second , the intent
must be coupled with reasonable connection in time and
space with the work in which he should be engaged.
vi. Scope of Employment:
1. Edgewater Motels Inc. v. Gatzke: A minor deviation from work related
activities, or personal acts that are incidental or concurrent with
employment duties, do not take the employee outside of scope of
employment.
vii. Intentional Torts of Employees:
1. Intentional Torts by employees do not usually give rise to vicarious
liability
2. vicarious liability possible even where a motive to serve the employers
interests is a highly relevant factor
a. Ex. Employee shot plaintiffs tire for trying to drive away with the
car, he was trying to further interest of employer
b. Ex. assaulting a competitor's employee (question of fact for jury)
viii. Caregivers:
1. Are those who have undertaken, to take care for the plaintiff who is
relatively helpless may be subject to some special rules
2. Some statutes provide that owners and licensees of nursing homes are
liable to a resident for any intentional or negligent act or omission of
theri agents or employees which injures the resident.
2. Independent Contractors
a. I.C. Defined: Not an employee of hiring body, but is hired to so some particular
work.
i. Just because you’re labeled as one doesn’t mean you are
ii. Look at the relationship
iii. Even if employers try to structure relationship as IC they can't escape liability.
iv. If sufficient control is not established = IC
v. Test to determine whether an employer is a servant or independent
contractor:
1. The right to control details of the work (Most import.)
2. Selection and engagement of the servant
3. payment of compensation
4. power of dismissal
5. power of control(Determinative)
b. General Rule: