|
|
|
|
|
        |
|
|
 |
JUDICIAL UPDATES Employer Is Liable for Injuries Resulting from Employee’s Implied Permissive Use of Company Car In Taylor v. Roseville Toyota, Inc., the California Court of Appeal affirmed a jury verdict that held an employer liable for an accident caused by one of its employees who was on a personal errand during lunch hour with a company car. An employee of the car dealership was driving a car owned by the dealership on a personal errand on his lunch break, when he rear-ended a car stopped at a stop light. The occupants of that vehicle sued the dealership and the employee for personal damages resulting from the accident. The jury determined that the employee was negligent and caused harm to the plaintiffs, and also found, though the employee was not acting within the scope of his employment, that the dealership had given the employee permission to use its car at the time of the accident. The dealership appealed from the verdict of nearly $300,000. California courts have identified several factors to be considered in determining whether an owner of a motor vehicle has given implied permission to another to use the vehicle: whether the owner was the employer of the operator; whether there has been a custom or practice of allowing employees to use company-owned vehicles; and whether the owner either failed to monitor or supervise the use of its vehicles. The Court of Appeal concluded that there was substantial evidence to support the jury verdict. This evidence included the company’s employee handbook, which only precluded “unauthorized use” of vehicles, rather than prohibiting personal use of company vehicles outright. In addition, the employee who ran the “key shack” where company cars were borrowed and returned had the “apparent authority” to tell the borrowing employee that he could use the vehicle for a personal errand during lunch so long as he brought the car right back. The jury was also allowed to consider the evidence that the dealership did not check where its vehicles went or were located once the keys were given out by the key shack attendant. Nor did the company require an estimated return time, or confirm where its vehicles were at the end of each day, even when they had been checked out for purposes requiring only a couple of hours of work. This “failure to monitor or supervise” the use of its vehicles supported a finding of implied permissive use.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
