AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• An employee of Jones Contractors, Inc., while driving to work in his personal vehicle equipped with his own welding rig, caused a car accident that injured the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff filed suit against Jones Contractors, Inc., alleging direct and vicarious liability for the employee's negligence. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant on all claims except for negligent hiring, training, supervision, or retention, which was left for jury determination (paras 1, 6).

Procedural History

• District Court of Eddy County: Granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant on Plaintiff’s claims for respondeat superior, negligence, negligence per se, and negligent entrustment, leaving negligent hiring, training, supervision, or retention to be resolved by the jury (para 9).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the Defendant was vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior because the employee was acting within the scope of employment at the time of the accident. Plaintiff disputed Defendant's facts regarding the nature of the employee's travel and equipment use, asserting that the employee was driving a personal vehicle leased by Defendant in furtherance of Defendant’s business (paras 7-8).
• Defendant: Contended that the employee was not acting within the scope of employment when the accident occurred, as he was not on the clock, was not being paid for travel time, and was not performing any work for Defendant at the time of the accident. Defendant also argued that Plaintiff’s claims for direct negligence fail because the employee was not driving a company vehicle and Plaintiff could not show that Defendant had a duty to supervise the employee when he was not on the clock (para 6).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in deciding as a matter of law that Defendant was not vicariously liable for the employee's negligence under the doctrine of respondeat superior (para 11).
• Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims for negligence, negligence per se, and negligent entrustment (para 25).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claims for negligence, negligence per se, and negligent entrustment.
• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment on Plaintiff’s respondeat superior claim and remanded for further proceedings (para 27).

Reasons

• Per Duffy, J. (Hanisee and Henderson, JJ., concurring): The Court concluded that there were conflicting inferences regarding whether the employee was acting within the scope of employment under the Lessard test, making it a question for the jury. The Court found that the employee's use of his personal vehicle equipped with his own welding rig, required for his job and for which he was compensated, could be seen as furthering Defendant's business. However, the Court agreed with the district court that Plaintiff did not adequately address her claims for direct negligence, leading to an affirmation of summary judgment on those claims (paras 10-26).