School Custodian Acted Within The Scope of His Employment When Driving From Coffee Shop to School
The issue of when an employee is or is not acting within the scope of employment is a critical issue in a wide variety of employment litigation. The Washington Court of Appeals recently addressed the issue in the context of Washington’s claim filing statute, RCW 4.96.020(4). The statute provides that claimants wishing to file suit against a government entity or its employees must first file a claim notice with that entity at least 60 days before filing suit.
Daryl Imm served as a custodian for the Snoqualmie Valley School District. His job entailed driving a district-owned truck between four different schools to perform various tasks. Imm regularly took a district-approved coffee break at the “Town Pump,” along with several fellow district maintenance employees. One day, after his coffee break, while driving from the Town Pump to his next school, the district-owned truck slid across a patch of black ice and collided with plaintiff’s car.
Plaintiff brought suit against Imm and the school district. Imm and the district moved for summary judgment on the basis that plaintiff failed to file the requisite claim notice before filing suit. After the trial court granted the motions for summary judgment, plaintiff appealed, claiming that Imm was not acting within the scope of employment at the time of the accident and, therefore, the claim notice statute did not apply to claims against Imm.
The Washington Court of Appeals undertook an extensive analysis of the scope of employment. As the Court of Appeals explained, an employee is generally acting within the scope of employment when “engaged at the time in the furtherance of the employer’s interests,” but the scope of employment also extends to “conduct [which] should have been fairly foreseen from the nature of the employment and the duties relating to it.” In light of the fact that Imm was travelling from the regular, employer-approved location of his paid coffee break to one of his schools at the time of the accident, the Court of Appeals determined that he was acting within the scope of employment at the time the district-owned truck collided with the plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed the order of summary judgment.
Melin-Schilling v. Imm, No. 61921-7-1 (Wn. Ct. App. Div. 1, April 13, 2009)
