EMPLOYER VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR AUTOMOBILE DAMAGES CAUSED BY EMPLOYEE GETTING TO JOB SITE
The courts often have to delve into the debate over when an employee is in the scope of employment when a car accident occurs, or alternatively, whether the employee was on their “own time” during the car accident. This case involved one such debate, that ultimately concluded that the employee was in the scope of his employment when the motor vehicle accident occurred.
The court had to contend with two primary issues. First, was the drive getting to the construction job site (about two hours away) part of the employment, and second, did the fact that the accident occurred when the worker had stopped at a Tim Horton’s to get coffee sufficient to render the employee “off the clock” at the time the accident occurred when the worker was trying to get back on the highway from the Tim Horton’s exit.
The lower court, and the appellate court, both agreed that the worker was in the course of his employment when the accident occurred. The worker was paid travel time for this trip, and the worker had special skills and equipment in his vehicle for the job to be done at the remote site, for the employer. The short departure to get a coffee was actually endorsed by the employer (so their workers could stretch their legs and be fresh), and regardless, the short diversion was not sufficient to suggest that the worker was on a “frolic of his own” at the time of the motor vehicle accident.
Things like this are primarily argued because of insurance policy limits: where the plaintiff’s damages will, or are expected to, exceed the driver’s insurance coverage, such that there is a legitimate need or desire to tap into the employer’s insurance coverage. This was indeed the reason why this vicarious liability issue was brought before the court.
Dagenais v. Pellerin, 2022 ONCA 76
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2022/2022onca76/2022onca76.html