TTH Attorneys Joe Cardile, Alex Mitchell and Sam Hemmingstad represented J&B Fabricators, an employer of one of the other named Defendants, Mr. Lopez.  On the date of loss, Mr. Lopez was driving his supervisor’s car to work.  The supervisor had allowed Mr. Lopez to use the car for personal and work-related purposes, with Mr. Lopez being responsible for maintaining the vehicle.  J&B did not direct or permit the supervisor to provide Mr. Lopez with access to the car, nor did not have any knowledge he had done so.  On the accident date, Mr. Lopez picked up some co-workers from their homes to carpool to work.  The accident occurred when he crossed the middle lane and stuck Plaintiffs head-on, resulting in severe injuries.

At the Lower Court level, Plaintiffs argued that J&B was negligent under a theory of respondeat superior, alleging that Mr. Lopez was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident.  Plaintiffs argued that the “going and coming” rule did not apply because the employer provided the transportation.  Plaintiffs’ arguments were without merit.  In a Motion for summary judgment, the TT&H attorneys argued that the evidence clearly showed that Mr. Lopez was driving a co-worker’s car, not a company car.  They further argued that J&B did not own the car, did not provide access to the car, and did not direct Mr. Lopez to use the car.  Further still, it was argued that disregarding the going and coming rule in this case would set a dangerous precedent, making employers insurers of their employees while traveling to and from work.  The Lower Court agreed with these arguments and entered summary judgment in favor of J&B.  Plaintiffs appealed.

On appeal, Plaintiffs again attempted to argue that Mr. Lopez was acting within the scope of his employment.  Moreover, under the workers’ compensation exception to the going and coming rule, it was argued that J&B should be found liable for Mr. Lopez’s negligent acts because he was required to travel to a work site.  The Appellate Court, however, found the absence of any law or evidence to support Plaintiffs’ contention that Mr. Lopez was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident.  Further, the Court concluded that applying workers’ compensation exceptions to the going and coming rule would act as an end-run around the very issue that liability cases are based on – fault. Therefore, the Appellate Court affirmed the Lower Court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of J&B.

Questions about this case can be directed to Joe Cardile at (443) 641-0574 or scardile@tthlaw.com, or to Alex Mitchell at (443) 641-0563 or amitchell@tthlaw.com, or to Sam Hemmingstad at (202) 978-2049 or shemmingstad@tthlaw.com.