Sumrall v. Modern Alloys, Inc.
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
MOORE, Acting P. J.
I
INTRODUCTION
“In general, an employee is not acting within the scope of employment while travelling to and from the workplace. But if the employee, while commuting, is on an errand for the employer, then the employee’s conduct is within the scope of his or her employment from the time the employee starts on the errand . . . .” (CACI No. 3724, italics added [The Going-and-Coming Rule—Business Errand Exception]; see Jeewarat v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. (2009) 111 Cal.App.4th 427, 435-436 [98 Cal.Rptr.3d 837] (Jeewarat).)
Here, a construction company paid its…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.California Supreme Court · 2001
- Johnson v. City of Loma LindaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000
- Hinman v. Westinghouse Electric Co.California Supreme Court · 1970
- Farmers Insurance Group v. County of Santa ClaraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995
- Ducey v. Argo Sales Co.California Supreme Court · 1979
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Adams v. Dept of Corrections and RehabilitationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2024
- Barron v. Galvin CA5California Court of Appeal · 2021
- Feltham v. Universal Protection Service, LPCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2022
- Perez v. City and County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2022