The Fourteenth District Court docket of Appeals of Texas has concluded that the Metropolis of Houston just isn’t responsible for damages arising out of an accident involving a fireplace investigator’s take-home car. Lorraine Sanchez filed swimsuit towards town following an accident the place a fireplace division SUV pushed by Lisa Thom rear-ended her car whereas getting into the ramp to I-45.
In line with the choice, Sanchez sued town alleging the Thom ’s negligence was imputed to town as a result of Thom was driving “within the scope and course of her Metropolis employment on the time of the collision.” Apparently Sanchez didn’t allege town was straight liable because the proprietor of the car or for negligent entrustment, coaching and/or supervision, nor did she sue Thom. Because it turned out that was a fateful choice.
The trial courtroom dismissed Sanchez’s declare primarily based on proof that confirmed that Thom was off-duty commuting dwelling on the time. Consequently, she was not driving the car inside the “scope and course’ of her duties. Sanchez appealed to the Court docket of Appeals.
Quoting from the choice:
- Governmental items are usually not responsible for the torts of their brokers until there’s a constitutional or statutory waiver of immunity.
- The [Texas Tort Claims act] TTCA waives a governmental unit’s immunity from swimsuit for private accidents arising from the negligent use of a motorcar by an worker performing inside the scope of her employment when the worker could be personally liable to the claimant beneath Texas regulation.
- Below the Act, “scope of employment” means the efficiency of “the duties of an worker’s workplace or employment and consists of being in or concerning the efficiency of a job lawfully assigned to an worker by competent authority.”
- Typically, whether or not an individual is performing inside the scope of her employment is determined by whether or not the act from which an damage arose was in furtherance of the employer’s enterprise and for the accomplishment of the target for which the worker was employed.
- When a car concerned in a collision is owned by the motive force’s employer, a presumption arises that the motive force was performing within the course and scope of employment when the collision occurred.
- But when there’s proof that the motive force was not in furtherance of her employer’s enterprise, the presumption is rebutted.
- Below the coming-and-going rule, an “worker is mostly not performing inside the scope of [her] employment when touring to and from work.”
- The approaching-and-going rule displays that an accident whereas touring to and from work doesn’t typically come up from an individual’s employment however as a substitute from the dangers and hazards inherent to the driving public.
- “Such journey hazards don’t come up out of the enterprise of an employer; thus, the regulation doesn’t maintain the employer responsible for accidents ensuing from partaking in these dangers.”
- It’s undisputed that Thom, a Metropolis worker, was driving a Metropolis-owned SUV when the collision occurred.
- This proof raises the presumption that she was performing within the course and scope of her employment.
- To rebut this presumption, the Metropolis supplied Thom’s affidavit, wherein she states that she “had already accomplished my work duties” for the day and “was merely commuting dwelling” when the collision occurred.
- The Metropolis’s proof thus establishes that beneath the coming-and-going rule, Thom was not conducting the Metropolis’s enterprise and was not performing within the scope of her employment on the time of the collision.
- Additional, sometimes being on name and dealing within the subject doesn’t increase a truth difficulty that Thom was performing within the course and scope of employment when the collision occurred.
- As a result of the uncontroverted proof conclusively proves that Thom was not performing within the course and scope of her employment with the Metropolis when the collision with Sanchez occurred, we conclude that the Metropolis’s governmental immunity has not been waived and the Metropolis established its entitlement to abstract judgment.
Lesson discovered for the Plaintiff Bar. Here’s a copy of the choice.