When you are pursuing a vicarious liability claim against an employer based on the negligence of an employee, the applicability of this form of liability often turns on whether the task was within the “course and scope of employment.” (This issue is also important in determining whether a workplace injury to an employee will be covered by the worker’s compensation system). In some cases, this issue is straightforward, such as when an employee of a pizza parlor causes an accident while making a delivery. However, this issue can become extremely complicated as a recent decision by the United States District Court, S.D., Northern District in Godwin v. United States illustrates.
In Godwin, a motorist was struck by a mail carrier for the U.S. Postal Service. The carrier, who was based out of Stonewall Mississippi, was technically designated as a Rural Carrier Associate of the United States Postal Service. The carrier returned to the postal annex at 2:35 p.m. after completing her route on the day of the accident. She realized she had forgot to deliver a piece of mail, so she clocked out and headed in the opposite direction from home to drop off the undelivered mail item. The collision occurred on her way to make the delivery at 2:55 p.m. There was conflicting evidence introduced regarding whether her after hours delivery was authorized by her supervisor. While she contended she had been granted permission, another employee indicated after hours deliveries were not typically authorized. Further, the other employee testified that the type of parcel would not have justified delivery outside a carrier’s work hours. The U.S. Postal Service moved for summary judgment indicating there was no genuine issue of material fact to justify the case moving forward. The trial judge denied the motion, and the postal service appealed.
The appellate court considered whether the postal carrier was “on duty” when the collision occurred. The court noted that this issue arose in the context of disputed federal jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which waives the sovereign immunity of the federal government as follows:
“For injury or loss of property or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.” (Emphasis added). Because the accident occurred in Mississippi, the appellate court acknowledged that the issue of whether the accident occurred within the “course and scope of employment” must be interpreted under Mississippi state law.
The court clarified that the act must occur in the course of employment and to achieve the purposes of the employer or objectives incidental to the authorized conduct. The court also noted that the mere fact the conduct of an employee has not been authorized is not dispositive of the issue of whether the act was within the course and scope or employment. The court noted that Mississippi Supreme Court has favorably cited the Restatement (Second) of Agency in this context as setting for the following test:
“(1) Conduct of a servant is within the scope of employment if, but only if:
(a) it is the kind he is employed to perform;
(b) it occurs substantially within the authorized time and space limits; and
(c) it is actuated, at least in part by a purpose to serve the master ….”
In applying this test to the relevant facts, the court indicated that all three prongs of the test were satisfied. First, the mail carrier was delivering an item of mail which constitutes actions in furtherance of the employer’s (U.S. Postal Service’s) purpose. Second, she was traveling to a residence on her assigned delivery route which falls within the required space restriction. The U.S. Postal Service argued that the time element was not satisfied because the carrier had clocked out. The government further contended that the “going and coming rule” applied, which states that acts of any employee traveling to and from work are not incident to employment. However, the carrier was headed in the opposite direction from home to make a mail delivery. The court concluded this course of action fell within the well-established exception to the “going and coming” rule relating to employees engaged in a special task or mission for an employer. As to the third prong of the test, the delivery of mail clearly benefited the employer. While there was conflicting evidence on whether the delivery was authorized by a supervisor of the postal service, the court found this was a legitimate issue for the jury to consider.
The issue of determining whether the “course and scope of employment” requirement for vicarious liability or worker’s compensation benefits has been satisfied is just one complex issue that makes litigating a personal injury lawsuit or worker’s compensation claim complicated. An experienced Mississippi Worker’s Compensation Attorney or personal injury attorney at Barrett law can help you navigate these difficult issues. Our Mississippi worker’s compensation lawyers have successfully represented many injured employees and victims of careless employees during our decades of representing clients. At Barrett Law, we are here to help. Contact our firm today at (800) 707-9577 to schedule your free consultation, so we can answer any questions you may have regarding filing your claim.
