Torts — scope of employment

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Civil

Torts — scope of employment

Where an employee was on her way to her place of employment in order to pick up money and deposit it at the bank, she was not acting in the scope of her employment, and the employer is not vicariously liable for her negligence resulting in an automobile accident.

“We decline to adopt the Carter exception to our DeRuyter holding. The record does not support doing so here. Reyna has not demonstrated that ‘bank runs’ are special errands—she testified that assistant managers routinely rotated performing bank runs and that bank runs were an ordinary part of her employment as an assistant manager. Family Dollar did not dictate Reyna’s method of transportation—she was not necessarily required to use her own personal vehicle or to routinely drive a vehicle to work. She was only required to arrange her own transportation, which could have been bus, taxi, or walking. Finally, Reyna was not ‘on-call.’ She did not know she was going to be called that day, but she understood the bank run scheduling procedures. She left for the store at her convenience. The record does not provide a factual basis for any of the elements of the Carter exception.”

Affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

2012AP2538 Milwaukee Transport Services, Inc., v. Family Dollar Stores of Wisconsin, Inc.

Dist. I, Milwaukee County, Foley, J., Kessler, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Kurth, Patti J., Milwaukee; Johnson, Karri E., Milwaukee; For Respondent: Wirth, Joseph M., Milwaukee; Granitz, Matthew L., Milwaukee