Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
D hired a pest control company to spray pesticide overnight to eliminate fleas at respondent's facility. Irma Hernandez arrived for work and noticed a funny smell similar to 'Raid.' She felt ill, with a headache, nausea, and tightness in her chest. She informed her two supervisors that she did not feel well enough to continue working and wanted to go home. Hernandez declined an offer to see the company doctor, and she indicated she was well enough to drive home. (Eventually, nine workers went home early feeling ill, and 22 employees sought medical care either that day or later for their exposure to the pesticide.) Hernandez drove home shortly after noon. She rear-ended P, who was stopped at a red light. Hernandez told the police officer who responded to the accident scene that she had felt dizzy and lightheaded before the accident. P sued Hernandez (who is not a party to this appeal) and D alleging a single cause of action for negligence for her personal injuries and property damage. P claimed D was vicariously liable as Hernandez's employer under the doctrine of respondeat superior because Hernandez was acting within the course and scope of her employment when she was driving home ill from pesticide exposure. D moved for summary judgment. D argued the 'going-and-coming' rule meant Hernandez was not within the course and scope of her employment during her commute home. Accordingly, it should not be held vicariously liable under respondeat superior. The court agreed. P appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co