Employer Not Liable for Volunteer’s Car Crash Negligence

When a volunteer completes his service, and is on his way back home when he negligently causes a collision, is the employer liable for the subsequent injuries? That was the question the California Court of Appeal answered last month in Savaikie v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals.

Ralph Steger volunteered for Kaiser and offered pet therapy services to Kasier patients. On July 16, 2015, Steger completed a therapy session, then made a personal stop before heading home. On his way home, he hit Wyatt Savalkie who was lawfully walking in a marked crosswalk. Wyatt was killed in the collision.

Wyatt’s parents sued several defendants, including Kaiser Foundation Hospitals. They alleged that Kaiser was responsible for Ralph Steger’s negligence because Steger was in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the collision. Under the principles of Respondeat Superior, an employer can generally be held responsible for the negligence of an employee unless a recognized exception to the rule applies.

Kaiser moved for summary judgment, arguing that the “going and coming rule” applied to the case. The going and coming rule is one such exception to Respondeat Superior. It holds that an employee who is on his way to or from the job site is not considered to be “on the clock”, and therefore, the employer should not be held liable for the employee’s negligence.

Wyatt’s parents countered that the going and coming rule was inapplicable, because they claimed Kaiser required Steger to use his own personal vehicle to travel to and from job sites. An employer who requires employees to use a personal vehicle is not afforded the liability exemption of the going and coming rule. Rather, that employee would be considered to be “on the clock” because of the requirement to use his/her own personal vehicle. (Pierson v. Helmerich, 4 Cal.App.5th 608 (2016).)

The Court ruled that Steger was not required to use his own vehicle. In fact, Kaiser did not specify how Steger was to travel to and from job sites. Deposition testimony confirmed that how Steger arrived at job sites was up to him—he was even allowed to take Uber or Lyft. Therefore, the “required vehicle” exception to the going and coming rule did not apply, and Kaiser was not liable for Steger’s negligence that killed Wyatt Savalkie.

As you might tell, issues of employer liability for the torts and negligence of their employees or volunteers can be a tricky issue. If you or someone you know was injured by the negligence of an employee of a company, all avenues of liability should be explored by an attorney knowledgeable with these issues.

The Rabbi Lawyer is ready to assist, 24/6.