Warning
Info
- - tl;dr
- - ICRA
- - Facts & Holding
- - DeepDive
0 0
Utah Supreme Court - 874 P.2d 125
Tags: Torts, Scope of employment
See also: Birkner v. Salt Lake County
tl;dr:
Security guard got into an accident on her lunch break right outside of her place of employment. The Court rules that a jury should decide whether the guard was acting within her scope of employment.Video Summary
Case Summary
In the Utah Supreme Court case Christensen v. Swenson (1994), the court ruled on a vicarious liability claim based on the legal principle of respondeat superior. The plaintiffs, Jeff Christensen and Kyle James Fausett, argued that Burns International Security Services, who employed the driver Gloria Swenson, should be held liable for her negligence in causing a car accident. Swenson's actions and whether they were within the scope of her employment were the main issue.
The court decided that Burns was not responsible for Swenson’s actions since she was not acting within her job duties when she left her security guard post to get soup from a cafe. The court applied a four-factor test to determine if Swenson's actions were within the scope of her employment, considering if the conduct was authorized, occurred during work time and location, served the employer's purpose, and involved foreseeable risks. Swenson's conduct did not meet any of these elements.
This case is significant because it demonstrates how courts use the respondeat superior principle, applying a four-factor test to determine if an employee's actions are within the scope of their job. It also shows how courts balance the interests of both parties in a tort dispute, aiming to avoid placing unjust liability on employers for employees' personal tasks. Justice Durham authored the opinion in this recent Utah tort law case.
DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition
The Utah Court of Appeals made an error in ruling that Burns International Security Services was not responsible for the actions of its employee, Gloria Swenson, under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Swenson, a security guard at the Geneva Steel Plant, was on an unscheduled break when she collided with a motorcycle on her way back from the Frontier Cafe. The court found that Swenson was acting within the scope of her employment, and therefore Burns was liable for her actions. The Utah Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs' petition for certiorari. Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Employers are vicariously liable for torts committed by employees acting within the scope of their employment under the doctrine of respondeat superior. The court may decide whether an employee is acting within the scope of their employment as a matter of law if the employee's activity is clearly within or outside the scope of employment. Birkner provides three criteria to determine whether an employee is acting within or outside the scope of their employment: the conduct must be related to the employer's business and assigned duties, occur within the ordinary spatial boundaries and hours of employment, and be motivated, at least in part, by serving the employer's interest.
The concurring opinion supports the summary judgment in favor of Burns and addresses the court of appeals' concerns about including off-site locations regularly visited by an employee for personal reasons in the scope of employment. It cites Christensen v. Burns Int'l Sec. Servs. as an example of behavior during an off-premises lunch hour generally not being considered within the scope of employment. However, the legal treatise by Larson recognizes exceptions to this rule, such as when the employee is paid during the lunch break and rushes out to get a quick bite to eat to conserve the employer's time. Shoemaker v. Snow Crop Marketers Division of Clinton Foods, Inc. is cited as an example where this exception was applied. The court of appeals judge agrees that this exception may be applicable in the present case, even though it is not a workers' compensation case.
LSD+ Case Briefs
Features
- DeepDive for detailed case analysis
- Over 50,000 existing case briefs
- Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
- Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
- Social learning with chat and high points
Over 50,000 Cases Briefed
LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.
14-Day Free Trial
Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.
Integrated Legal Dictionary
Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.
Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.
DeepDive
DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.
Brief anything. Instantly.
Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.
Social Learning with Chat and High Points
Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.
Real-Time Brief Feedback
Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.