Melissa Broadway v. Kelley Brothers Contractors, Inc.

Citation: Not availableDocket: 1998-CT-01195-SCT

Court: Mississippi Supreme Court; May 22, 1998; Mississippi; State Supreme Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Morris Robinson, an employee of Kelley Brothers Contractors, was driving a company truck when he collided with a vehicle driven by Melissa Broadway, resulting in the death of her three-year-old son, Alex. Broadway filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Kelley Brothers, claiming vicarious liability. The trial court dismissed the case through summary judgment, a decision later affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court of Mississippi granted certiorari, reviewed the summary judgment under a de novo standard, and ultimately reversed and remanded the case.

The Court reiterated that when an employee is driving a vehicle owned by the employer, there is a presumption that the employee is acting within the scope of employment. The employer bears the burden of disproving this presumption by demonstrating a significant deviation from work-related duties. Conversely, if an employer merely lends a vehicle to an employee for personal use, the employer is not liable for any negligent actions taken during that time. The Court emphasized that the liability hinges on whether the employee was engaged in the employer's business at the time of the accident, regardless of any intent to return to work.

In *Travelers Indem. Co. v. Watkins*, the court applied the minor deviation rule, determining that an employee's actions fall within the scope of employment if they adhere to the time, geographic, and purpose limitations of their permission. To disprove vicarious liability, the employer must demonstrate that the employee was pursuing a personal interest unrelated to their work. The Court of Appeals found insufficient grounds to hold Kelley Brothers liable, noting that an employee's intent to inspect a work site after church was a personal matter. 

Evidence showed that on October 27, 1996, the employee, Robinson, had considered going to the job site but was not assigned there on that day. His affidavit claimed he had decided to go, stating it was within the scope of his employment, contradicting the employer's evidence. The court highlighted that this conflict is a material factual dispute requiring jury resolution, particularly regarding Robinson's authority and whether he was within the course of his employment at the time of the accident.

The judgments of the Court of Appeals and the Clarke County Circuit Court were reversed and the case remanded for trial. A dissenting opinion argued that the majority incorrectly identified material fact issues, asserting that Kelley Brothers was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law, as the employee had abandoned his work duties. The dissent supported the trial court's summary judgment favoring the employer.

When an employee diverts from work for personal reasons unrelated to the employer's business, the employer's liability for the employee's actions is temporarily suspended. This principle is illustrated in the case of Seedkem South, Inc. v. Lee, where the employee's deviation for personal purposes was deemed outside the scope of employment, despite intentions to return to work afterward. The determination of whether an employee acted within the scope of employment is a legal question for the court when facts are not in dispute. Significant deviations from work duties can lead the court to conclude that the employee was not engaged in their employer's business. 

In the current matter, the jury must assess if Robinson had the authority to inspect the Toxey work site; however, this does not impact the core issue. Even if Robinson were authorized to go to the work site, at the time of the accident, he was en route to church, a personal activity unrelated to his employer’s interests. This aligns with the precedent set in International Shoe Co. v. Harrison, where an employee’s personal diversion led to a conclusion that he was outside the scope of employment, despite initial intentions to fulfill work duties. The court emphasized that once the employee engaged in personal activities, he had entirely disengaged from his employer's business.

Robinson was en route to a church service at the time of the accident, having temporarily disengaged from business activities related to Kelley Brothers, similar to the situation in International Shoe. His intention to later visit the Toxey work site does not impact the relevance of his actions at the time of the accident, as he was not furthering his employer's business while heading to church. The potential materiality of his authorization to visit Toxey would only apply had the accident occurred after leaving the church. The majority's reliance on Travelers Indem. Co. v. Watkins and United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Bonner is misplaced; those cases addressed insurance coverage related to minor deviations in vehicle use, not employer liability under respondeat superior. Therefore, the cited cases do not pertain to the present appeal. The trial court's summary judgment favoring Kelley Brothers was appropriate, as no material issues of fact warranted a jury's consideration, leading to a dissenting opinion.