Carter v. Reynolds

I am able to join in the judgment of the Court and its narrow holding that applies the “required-vehicle” exception to the “going- and-coming” rule and imposes liability on this employer under a respondeat superior theory. Importantly, the Court eschews any reliance on “the broad enterprise liability theory that is the standard for respondeat superior in California.” Ante at 418, *420815 A.2d at 469; see also O’Toole v. Carr, 175 N.J. 421, 815 A.2d 471 (2003). The Court wisely declines to adopt a standard that effectively abandons consideration of employer control in the context of employee…