Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Bouie was employed as a daycare teacher at D, and she also attended college courses to earn her associate degree in early childhood education. She typically took an approximately hour-long, unpaid lunch break during her workday. On January 26, she used her lunch break to perform in a puppet show so that she could earn extra credit in one of her courses. Bouie told her manager that she would return from her lunch break “a little bit late,” likely “a little after 2:00 p.m..” She clocked out for her lunch break at 12:53 p.m., drove her own car to the location of the puppet show, performed in the show, and then left around 2:20 p.m. Bouie was returning from her lunch break to D, when she looked away from the road to scroll through the contacts in her cell phone so that she could call her manager to report that she was running late. Her car crossed the median and caused an accident with a truck that was driven by P. P filed a personal injury lawsuit against Bouie. She admitted during her deposition that the accident was her fault. P later added D, alleging that Bouie was acting in furtherance of D's business and within the scope of her employment at the time of the accident. D claimed that teacher-to-child ratios and the requirement that employees contact D if they were to be late meant that Bouie was acting within the scope of employment when the accident occurred. D moved for summary judgment which the trial court granted holding that Bouie was not acting in furtherance of D's business and within the scope of her employment when the accident occurred. P appealed. A divided Court of Appeals reversed, holding that under the “special circumstances exception” to the general rule that employees do not act in furtherance of an employer's business and within the scope of employment when they are commuting to and from work or when they are on a lunch break, and under two of its cases applying that “exception,” there was sufficient evidence to raise a jury question as to the issue of liability under respondeat superior. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.