banner

EMPLOYEES WHO DRIVE

RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR

  When an employee drives a car during work, generally, the doctrine of Respondeat Superior requires the employer to be responsible for the negligence of its employees. The doctrine makes employers cover the business costs associated with their employee’s mistakes. Further, it places the burden of covering mistakes on the relatively deeper pockets of the employer to make the injured third party whole.

 

EXCEPTIONS TO RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR

  One exception to the Respondeat Superior rule is employers are not required to cover the negligent acts of independent contractors who drive for the employers. For instance, if a retailer, such as target, pays and independent trucking company to transport most of its goods from its warehouses to its retail stores, Target probably will not be liable for any accidents caused by the truck drivers. On the other hand, if Target has its own trucking fleet driven by its employees, then negligent acts of the drivers will normally create liability for Target.

  A court found that a pizza delivery driver, who drove his own car, paid for gas, and provided vehicle insurance, was an employee and not an independent contractor. (Toyota Motor Sales v. Superior Court, 220 Cal.App.3d 86 4, 876.)  The driver only had a $15,000 insurance policy and the injuries he caused in a rear end collision were very severe.  In addition, the pizza store owner, who hired the delivery driver, had a $15,000 liability policy that the owner tendered for settlement. Toyota was also sued for a defective seatbelt. Toyota objected to the settlement offered by the store owner because Toyota believed that the owner had much greater potential liability since it believed that the delivery driver was an employer rather than an independent contractor. The appellate court agreed with Toyota.

  In a spate of related situations in Southern California, courts have found that shipping companies have improperly classified truck drivers as independent contractors, resulting in wage theft. The shippers deduct truck lease charges, insurance payments, maintenance costs, fuel cost, etc. Those deductions are legal if they drivers are actually independent contractors. However, in these cases, the courts found that the drivers where employees and the cost deductions were not legal. Employers must cover the costs of doing business. (Labor Code §2802.)  In these cases, the trucking companies required the drivers to lease trucks but only drive for them. Under that arrangement, the truckers are usually employees.

  Any act that falls outside the “scope of employment” is another general exception to the rule of Respondeat Superior.  For instance, intentional acts of an employee usually do not create liability for the employer.  For instance, if a driver runs over a pedestrian because the driver intends to kill that pedestrian, then the company would not be liable for any injury caused by the driver. Another example is when an employee drives a company car for purely personal use after hours. However, as a practical matter, when the employee is driving a company care, the company may still have an insurance policy that may cover the driver for after-hours use of the car. The company will not be liable for the employee’s negligent driving. In fact, that doctrine generally applies when an employee is on a duty free meal period.  (Peccolo v. City of Los Angeles, (1937) 8 Cal. 2d 532, 539.)

  However, willful and malicious acts that violate the employer’s policies, in some cases, may fall within the scope of his employment. (Mary M. v. City of Los Angeles, (1991) 54 Cal.3d 202, 209.) In that case, a police officer pulled over a female motorist for driving under the influence. The driver failed the tests but protested. The officer drove her home and then raped her as a form of payment for not arresting her.

 

MOTOR CARRIER MEAL AND REST PERIOD LIABILITY

  After several years of court battles, the Federal Ninth Ciruit Court of appeal ruled that motor carriers in California must give their employees meal and rest periods as required by California law. (Dilts v. Penske Logistics, LLC, 12-55705, 2014 WL 3291749 (9th Cir. July 9, 2014).) Before the Ninth circuit weighed in, different California Federal Courts had made opposite rulings. In other words, the Courts had decided the matter differently, some finding that meal and rest period regulations applied to motor carriers, others finding that they did not.

 

S. Ward Heinrichs, Esq.
Employment Law Office of Ward Heinrichs
4565 Ruffner Street, Suite 207
San Diego, CA 92111
(858) 292-0792
(858) 408-7543 (fax)

PLEASE FOLLOW US HERE

Visit Us On FacebookVisit Us On TwitterVisit Us On Google PlusVisit Us On LinkedinVisit Us On YoutubeCheck Our Feed

For FREE Consultation!

Brief description of your legal issue:

First Name

Best Email

Phone

captcha
Please write the text above in the field below

REVIEWS

“Mr. Heinrichs is truly the most caring attorney I have ever met. After calling for an initial consult and leaving a message, my call was returned with in 30 minutes. He listened to me with out making me feel like a dollar sign and agreed to take on my case. I never had a problem communicating with him. He explained the process and informed me of every next step. I always knew what to expect and what time frame I was looking at. He worked hard on my case and I was happy with the outcome.” Amy L. Lakeside, CA
“This is the second time I employed the service of this firm and I got a very positive outcome from my labor issue. Mr. Heinrichs is very understanding and professional and his negotiation skills are very effective in lending a voice to any employee that has to face a well defended and lawyered up corporation. I also recommended him to a friend of mine a couple of years back and he was able to also get a decent severance package for that person.”
M. S. Del Mar, CA
“Ward Heinrichs was very effective in helping me resolve my labor issues with my company. He advised me on settlements and we received the desired outcome very quickly. He also ran through various options on his fees and let me chose the one that worked for me. He is a pleasant and professional attorney and I recommend him highly.” L R. San Diego, CA
“My name is Jeffrey Walters and I was the lead class representative in a case against Pacific Eagle International Security, Inc., a company that provided armed security guard services for the U.S. Navy. During our case, Ward Heinrichs always responded to my phone calls and many e-mails regarding the many problems we all faced with this case. We worked closely together to prove that California wage law applied to Pacific Eagle, even though the class of security guards worked on property controlled by the Navy. Pacific Eagle believed that only federal wage law applied to it. Without Mr. Heinrichs’ unwavering persistence and total command of the difficult issues in the case, we probably would never have received the money Pacific Eagle owed us. Mr. Heinrichs presented the case through facts obtained through vigorous research. After two years of litigation, Pacific Eagle finally agreed to pay $900,000.00 to settle the class action for unpaid wages, un-reimbursed expenses, penalties, etc. I received $15,000.00 for being one of the class representatives in addition to my share of the money that Pacific Eagle owed me and my fellow security guards. I am very grateful for the hard work and commitment.”
Jeffrey Walters
“Ward Heinrichs is professional and knows employment law. He is personable, always answers his phone and was available anytime I called. As a person in transition for the very first time in 25 years, he has helped me move forward without any regrets. I would recommend Mr. Heinrichs for any employment related dispute.”
JFM Temecula, Ca.