Robbins v. Hewlett-Packard Corp.
| Citation | 26 Cal.App.3d 489,103 Cal.Rptr. 184 |
| Decision Date | 20 June 1972 |
| Docket Number | HEWLETT-PACKARD |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Joan M. ROBBINS et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.CORPORATION, a corporation, Defendant and Respondent. Civ. 28958. |
Boccardo, Blum, Lull, Niland, Teerlink & Bell, David S. Lull, San Jose, for plaintiffs and appellants.
Popelka, Allard, Humphreys, Williams & Stenberg, Bernard J. Allard, Dean E. Stenberg, San Jose, for defendant and respondent.
This is an appeal by the heirs of Raymond Robbins and Lynn Marie Robbins from a judgment entered in favor of defendant Hewlett-Packard Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'Hewlett-Packard') following a court trial of their action for wrongful death. Plaintiffs' sole contention is that the court erred in finding that William K. Cowan, Jr., an employee of Hewlett-Packard, was neither engaged in a special errand for his employer not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. Upon a review of the evidence we conclude that the finding is supported by substantial evidence and that therefore the judgment must be affirmed.
The evidence upon which we predicate our determination is as follows: Every summer Hewlett-Packard sponsors a picnic for its employees and their families and guests on property which it owns in the Santa Cruz mountains. All grades of employees are invited and they are not required to check in and out of the picnic grounds. No seminars are conducted at the picnic nor are any speeches made or any honorary awards bestowed. The picnic is announced by posters which are put up on various bulletin boards throughout the company's premises and by a notation in the company newspaper. An employee indicates his intention to attend by requesting a free ticket. Married employees can obtain tickets for their spouse and children and single employees can obtain a ticket for a guest.
Prior to the picnic which was to be held on June 15, 1968, Larry Skeim, chairman of the entertainment committee, approached Ken Grace during working hours and asked him if he would be willing to take charge of a beanbag booth at the picnic. Skeim told Grace how long the booth would be open and advised him that two people should run it. Grace, who was senior in employment to Cowan, asked Cowan if he would work at the booth for an hour. When a person volunteered, Grace, wrote his or her name down during working hours. Grace made a list of alternates and advised those who had volunteered to notify him if they would not be able to work at the booth so that he might request an alternate to supervise the booth. Grace testified that he was not required to work at the booth and he did not feel that it affected his job or his salary. He received no compensation for taking charge of the booth.
No one was compelled to attend the picnic. No one was compensated for helping out at the picnic. Hewlett-Packard does not consider whether an employee has attended the picnic or whether he has volunteered to help organize it in evaluating an employee. Cowan could have withdrawn his offer to help at the beanbag stand without jeopardizing his job or his chances for advancement. The picnic provided an enjoyable afternoon for employees and their relatives and friends and also helped to improve morale within the company.
The picnic was held on Saturday, which is not a regular work day. Cowan attended the picnic in order to have a good time. He had no plans to meet with any of his supervisors. Hewlett-Packard did not provide transportation to the picnic. There were two routes which could be taken to reach the picnic grounds and Hewlett-Packard did not prescribe which one to take. Hewlett-Packard had no control over what time an employee arrived or left. Cowan drove to the picnic in his own car and he paid for the gas and oil. Hewlett-Packard had not agreed to reimburse anyone for his travel expenses.
Cowan arrived at the picnic around 10:00 o'clock. He worked at the beanbag booth between 11:00 o'clock and noon. According to his previous arrangement with Grace Cowan was free to leave the booth during this hour if he so desired. During the day Cowan drank beer and ate a meal, both of which were gratuituously supplied by Hewlett-Packard for those in attendance.
Cowan was employed by Hewlett-Packard as a service technician. Neil Neilson was his immediate supervisor and John Walling was head of the division. Chuck Ernest was Walling's supervisor. Walling and Ernest attended the picnic, but Neilson did not. During the course of the afternoon Cowan spoke to Walling and his wife but he did not speak to Ernest.
In the late afternoon Cowan left the picnic in his automobile, intending to return to his home in order to go swimming. At about 5:40 p.m., at a distance of .8 of a mile from the picnic ground, Cowan's automobile struck a motorcycle operated by Raymond Robbins and upon which Robbins' daughter Lynn Marie was riding as a passenger. Both Robbins and his daughter died as a result of the collision. Immediately prior to the accident Cowan was operating his vehicle at a high rate of speed and it was being operated on the wrong side of the road at the time of the accident. Cowan had not stopped his vehicle from the time he left the picnic grounds until the accident occurred.
Adverting to plaintiffs' sole contention that the court erred in not finding that Cowan was on a special errand for Hewlett-Packard and thus within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident, we observe that the question presented is whether the character of the picnic and Hewlett-Packard's relation to it were such that Cowan's attendance could be considered within the scope of his employment. It is apparently plaintiffs' contention that within the context of the instant case this issue is one of law rather than of fact. They note that the court's finding of fact that Cowan was not on a special errand is the same as one of the court's conclusions of law. They argue that, given the court's other findings of fact, it should have concluded as a matter of law that Cowan was on a special errand at the time of the accident. The findings relied upon for this contention, essentially, are those which state that the picnic provided a benefit to Hewlett-Packard in that it contributed to the morale of its employees; that Cowan volunteered to work at the beanbag stand from 11:00 o'clock until noon and unless notified to the contrary Hewlett-Packard understood that he would be present; and that Cowan drove from the picnic parking lot directly to the scene of the accident, intending...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sharrock v. United States
...Bank, 233 Cal.App.3d 598, 605, 284 Cal.Rptr. 491 (1991) (employee driving to night school from work); Robbins v. Hewlett–Packard Corp., 26 Cal.App.3d 489, 495, 103 Cal.Rptr. 184 (1972) (employee attending company picnic). In finding no respondeat superior liability here, the district court ......
-
Sharrock v. United States
...v. Great Am. First Sav. Bank, 233 Cal. App. 3d 598, 605 (1991) (employee driving to night school from work); Robbins v. Hewlett-Packard Corp., 26 Cal. App. 3d 489, 495 (1972) (employee attending company picnic). In finding no respondeat superior liability here, the district court applied lo......
-
Glassman v. U.S.
...Cal.App.3d 441, 448, 213 Cal.Rptr. 314 (1985)(departures from employment place employee outside scope); Robbins v. Hewlett-Packard Corp., 26 Cal.App.3d 489, 494, 103 Cal.Rptr. 184 (1972)(employer liable under respondeat superior if employee commits tort while on special errand. Liability de......
-
Harris v. Trojan Fireworks Co.
... ... 13, 572 ... P.2d 1155; see also Campbell v. General Motors Corp. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 112, 117-118, 184 Cal.Rptr. 891, 649 P.2d 224.) ... " 'When, as ... (See Calrow v. Appliance Industries, Inc. (1975) 49 Cal.App.3d 556, 122 Cal.Rptr. 636; Robbins v. Hewlett-Packard Corp. (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 489, 103 Cal.Rptr. 184.) ... ...