Dhanraj v. Potomac Elec. Power Co.
| Decision Date | 01 September 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 75,75 |
| Citation | 506 A.2d 224,305 Md. 623 |
| Parties | Deonarine DHANRAJ et ux. v. POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY. , |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Eric S. Slatkin (Karl G. Feissner, John E. Beckman, Jr. and Feissner & Beckman, on brief), Langley Park, for appellant.
John Noble (Alexander J. Crow and Simpson, Simpson & Noble, on brief, Rockville, and H. Edward Holtz, on brief, Upper Marlboro), for appellee.
Argued before MURPHY, C.J., and SMITH, ELDRIDGE, COLE, RODOWSKY, COUCH and McAULIFFE, JJ.
This appeal requires us to examine the extent to which an employer can be held vicariously liable for the negligence of an employee when at the time of the alleged negligence, the employee was driving his own vehicle en route to an employer operated training facility.
On the morning of October 18, 1983, Joseph Sandy, an employee of Potomac Electric Power Company (PEPCO), was driving his own automobile to a PEPCO training station located off of Benning Road in Washington, D.C. He carried one passenger, a fellow PEPCO employee. Normally, the two men worked at the Dickerson, Maryland plant, a location considerably closer to Sandy's Rohrersville home. PEPCO had requested that each of these employees attend a six week training course at the Benning Road facility to upgrade his job status. 1
PEPCO did not provide any form of transportation to the facility, nor did the employees receive any compensation for gas or mileage. However, both were receiving a travel allowance pursuant to a union contract. This allowance was determined according to the distance between an employee's regular work place (here the Dickerson plant) and the training location (the Benning Road facility) without reference to the employee's place of residence or means of transportation.
Aside from the initial request for attendance and the payment of the travel allowance, PEPCO was completely uninvolved in the travel aspect of the temporary assignment. PEPCO did not specify the mode of transportation or the route of travel. Nor were the employees paid for their travel time. Their workday started when they arrived at the training center and ended when they departed. All commuting was done on their own time. In sum, they received no additional remuneration for participating in the training course other than the above-mentioned travel allowance.
Sandy had successfully completed five of the assigned six weeks of training. As he was driving his own vehicle to the temporary site on Tuesday morning of the sixth week, he encountered heavy traffic. At some point during the tie up, Sandy's vehicle lightly struck that of Deonarine Dhanraj, appellant. 2 Thereafter, both Sandy and Dhanraj alighted from their automobiles and exchanged information while standing between the two cars. As they were doing so, a third automobile operated by Lewis Wise struck the Sandy vehicle from behind pinning Dhanraj and Sandy between their two vehicles. Both men suffered severe injuries.
Following this mishap, Dhanraj and his wife filed suit in Prince George's County Circuit Court. Originally, Sandy and Wise were the only named defendants in the action. The declaration was later amended to include PEPCO as an additional defendant. It was claimed that PEPCO was vicariously liable for Sandy's negligence under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
PEPCO filed a Motion for Summary Judgment contending that it could not be held vicariously liable for the negligence, if any, of its employee Sandy. The circuit court agreed and granted the motion for summary judgment holding that as a matter of law, Sandy was not acting within the scope of his PEPCO employment at the time of the accident. Judgment for PEPCO was entered pursuant to Md. Rule 2-602, and an appeal was taken to the Court of Special Appeals. The intermediate appellate court affirmed the trial court, Dhanraj v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 62 Md.App. 94, 488 A.2d 512 (1985), and we thereafter granted certiorari.
Appellants here claim error in the trial court's refusal to permit the fact finder to determine whether Sandy's driving to a special training session located a substantial distance from his normal work site was within the scope of his employment. Appellee counters that the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions hold as a matter of law that traveling to and from work in situations analogous to that at hand does not subject the employer to tort liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
Globe Indemnity Co. v. Victill Corp., 208 Md. 573, 580, 119 A.2d 423 (1956). The rule, however, has been to some extent narrowed with respect to automobiles.
"[O]n account of the extensive use of the motor vehicle with its accompanying dangers, the courts have realized that a strict application of the doctrine of respondeat superior in the modern commercial world would result in great injustice."
Henkelmann v. Insurance Co., 180 Md. 591, 599, 26 A.2d 418 (1942).
"It is now held by the great weight of authority that a master will not be held responsible for negligent operation of a servant's automobile, even though engaged at the time in furthering the master's business unless the master expressly or impliedly consents to the use of the automobile, and ... had the right to control the servant in its operation, or else the use of the automobile was of such vital importance in furthering the master's business that his control over it might reasonably be inferred." Id. (citations omitted).
The application of the doctrine "rests upon the power of control and direction which the superior has over the subordinate, and ... does not arise when the servant is not actually or constructively under the direction and control of the master." Hooper v. Brawner, 148 Md. 417, 421, 129 A. 672 (1925). In other words, the doctrine may be properly invoked if the master has, "expressly or impliedly, authorized the [servant] to use his personal vehicle in the execution of his duties, and the employee is in fact engaged in such endeavors at the time of the accident." L.M.T. Steel Products, Inc. v. Pierson, 47 Md.App. 633, 643, 425 A.2d 242, 248 (1981) (emphasis added). See also Paly v. United States, 125 F.Supp. 798 (D.Md.1954), aff'd, 221 F.2d 958 (4th Cir.1955). Normally, therefore, while driving to and from his job site, an employee is not acting within the scope of his employment. See Annot., 52 A.L.R.2d 287, 303 (1957). It is essentially the employee's own responsibility to get to or from work.See Restatement (Second) of Agency § 229, comment d (1958). Thus, the general rule is that absent special circumstances, an employer will not be vicariously liable for the negligent conduct of his employee occurring while...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tall v. Board of School Com'rs of Baltimore City
...263 Md. 341, 346-47, 283 A.2d 392 (1971); Dhanraj v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 62 Md.App. 94, 101, 488 A.2d 512 (1985), aff'd, 305 Md. 623, 506 A.2d 224 (1986). The issue becomes a question of law, however, when there is no factual dispute. Globe Indem. Co., 208 Md. at 585, 119 A.2d 423; Kar......
-
Connors v. Oaks
...that when the accident occurred Oaks was en route to work in Jessup and had "passed" his home store. In Dhanraj v. Potomac Electric Power Co., 305 Md. 623, 506 A.2d 224 (1986), an employee of PEPCO was temporarily assigned to a six week training course. As the training facility was farther ......
-
Barclay v. Briscoe
...461, 480–81, 836 A.2d 627, 638 (2003) ; Oaks v. Connors, 339 Md. 24, 30, 660 A.2d 423, 426 (1995) ; Dhanraj v. Potomac Electric Power Co., 305 Md. 623, 627, 506 A.2d 224, 226 (1986); Restatement (Second) of Agency § 219 (1958). The doctrine is based on the principle that “[b]ecause ‘the ma......
-
SOUTHERN MANAGEMENT v. Taha
...authority of the master ... or which the master ratifies with the knowledge of all the material facts.'" Dhanraj v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 305 Md. 623, 627, 506 A.2d 224 (1986) (citation omitted). Thus, an employer can be liable for the tort of malicious prosecution committed by its emplo......