LIABILITY OF EMPLOYEE WHILE ON OUT-OF-TOWN ASSIGNMENT
Who bears the burden when an employee is working out-of-town and gets in trouble in some way? If the employee commits an intentional tort of some kind – for instance, an assault – he is on his own. But what about something less egregious, like a car accident?
In one fairly recent case, a DPS officer who normally worked in Phoenix, was assigned to work for a period of time in Douglas. The distance required him to live in a Douglas motel. After work, he asked for a restaurant recommendation, and left for dinner with his temporary supervisor. On the way, he negligently ran into the plaintiff, causing injuries. The officer made a motion to get himself out of the case, saying he was working for the State when it happened, and that any liability should fall on the State, not him. The trial court granted his motion, and the Court of Appeals agreed. The Court of Appeals held that the employee was acting for the employer if, at the time of the accident, he was “doing any reason able thing which his employment expressly or implicitly authorizes him to do or which may reasonably be said to have been contemplated by that employment as necessarily or probably incidental to the employment.” The court listed three factors to consider when deciding whether the employee was acting for his employer.
- Was the activity the kind the employee was authorized to perform?
- Did it occur substantially within the authorized time and space limits?
- Was the employee acting for the purpose of serving the employer?
The Court held that going for a meal on an out-of-town assignment was expected and incidental to the assignment. The Court also held that, if the trip was for the dual purpose of serving the employer and the employee, the employee would still be protected. But the Court also held that, if the employee had already eaten but was then making a second trip to a bar for entertainment, there would be no protection.
What does this mean for you?
For the employee, this means that she needs to remember this distinction between expected actions within the assignment (e.g., meals) and those which serve just the employee (e.g., the bar). Of course, the distinction is not always clear. For instance, what if the employee is a salesperson and is going to the bar, at least in part, to drum up customers?
For the employer, this means that your employee manual should clearly delineate what activities are considered authorized by the assignment and which are not.
A COUPLE TRICKS YOU CAN EXPECT FROM VALLEY CAR DEALERS
Recently, I’ve received more calls about car purchases gone wrong than any other subject. These are calls I did not receive before the economy began to suffer. But some car dealers have, unfortunately, resorted to taking advantage of the consumer in response to the recession.
I will tell you about two such practices. The purpose of both is the same: getting the consumer into the car, allowing her to drive it for a few weeks until she is attached to it, then calling the car back citing some problem, in the hope that the buyer will have become so attached that she will comply with the new condition, which usually means paying more money.
The first practice is informing the buyer, a few weeks after the transaction, that the dealer could not get financing from the usual sources, and that the buyer must come in to sign a new contract, which invariably will include tougher terms, usually regarding interest rate.
At first, dealers were doing this without the support of any language in the contract. But once lawyers started getting involved, the dealers started including language with the other boilerplate saying that the deal is contingent on the dealer finding appropriate financing. The language was usually too small to read and incomprehensible even if you could read it. Again, the lawyers got involved, claiming this practice was unconscionable and possibly fraudulent. So the dealers finally went to their lawyers who drew up a separate document that had the contingent language in bigger, more readable print and requiring the buyer’s initials. This document is probably enforceable in court. So when you’re handed a sheet calling for your initials, be sure to read it closely.
One more thing . . . If you decide to let the deal go and demand your trade-in back, and the dealer says it is already gone, know that the dealer has broken state law, which requires it to keep the trade-in available until all contingencies are met.
The second practice – less frequent and more justifiable – relates to your trade-in. The salesman will usually ask you a number of questions about the car, which you should answer honestly. But what about the things they don’t ask you about. Are you off the hook? No. That same list requiring your initials which I discussed above will also include a provision stating:
“I understand that the amount showing as Trade Payoff is my responsibility, an estimate only, and subject to verification by my lien holder for a minimum 10-Day payoff.”
This means that, if the dealer within the first 10 days discovers a problem with the car which it believes affects its value, it can rescind the transaction unless you pay for that difference in value. Since you probably made the deal only because of the amount you were getting on the trade-in, this can be a big deal. You may love the car enough to pay the difference, but before doing so, require the dealer to verify his assessment of the decrease in value.
It may be possible for you to handle this negotiation on your own, but I don’t advise it. The dealer will be more responsive to a lawyer’s letterhead.