Legal Opinion

Melin-Schilling v. Imm

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided April 13, 2009No. 61921-7-IPublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

¶1 An employee who drives an employer provided vehicle, performs work at multiple employer sites, and is driving to one site from a mandated break at an employer sanctioned location is acting within the scope of employment. Hence, failure to comply with Washington’s claim filing statute1 precludes initiating suit against that employee. We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of this action.

Grosse, J.

FACTS

¶2 Daryl Imm was employed by the Snoqualmie Valley School District No. 410 as a maintenance custodian. Imm was assigned a truck to use during his workday as his job required him to work at four…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Robel v. Roundup Corp.Washington Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Dickinson v. EdwardsWashington Supreme Court · 1986
  3. Udall v. TD Escrow Services, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2007
  4. Udall v. T.D. Escrow Services, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2007
  5. Greene v. St. Paul-Mercury Indemnity Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1958

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Hughes v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson CountyTennessee Supreme Court · 2011
  2. Rosa Maria Cabrera Thompson v. Seattle Public Schools, a public school district in the State of Washington, et al.District Court, W.D. Washington · 2026
  3. Washington Counties Risk Pool v. Tamara CorterCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2016

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API