Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

Order 

September 24, 2010 

140468 & (40)(41) 

 

ALEXIS DANIELS, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140468 

 COA: 288403 

Oakland CC: 2007-081118-NI 

JANET-PETROSKY CLARK, 

Defendant-Appellee, 

and 

CONSUMER SOURCE, INC., f/k/a 

HAAS PUBLISHING COMPANIES, INC., 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The application for leave to appeal the December 15, 2009 judgment of the Court of 

Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, there being no majority in favor of granting 

leave to appeal or taking other action. The motion for stay is DENIED as moot. 

 YOUNG, J., would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals. 

 MARKMAN, J. (dissenting). 

 I dissent from this Court’s denial of leave to appeal because plaintiff, in my 

judgment, has not set forth sufficient evidence to sustain her respondeat superior claim in 

this automobile negligence action. Accordingly, I would reverse the judgment of the 

Court of Appeals and reinstate the decision of the trial court. 

 The trial court found, and the evidence establishes, that defendant Petrosky-Clark, 

an employee of defendant Haas Publishing, was driving to work on the morning of the 

accident to attend a weekly sales meeting. “[A] master is responsible for the wrongful 

acts of his servant committed while performing some duty within the scope of his 
I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 24, 2010 

p0921 

 

2

employment.” Murphy v Kuhartz, 244 Mich 54, 56 (1928). Generally, an employee is 

not acting within the scope of his or her employment when traveling to and from work. 

Thomas v Certified Refrigeration, Inc, 392 Mich 623, 631 n 3 (1974). Exceptions to this 

general rule exist where the employee is engaged in a “special mission in the interest of 

and at the direction of his employer,” LeVasseur v Allen Electric Co, 338 Mich 121, 123 

(1953), or where the employer derives a special benefit from the employee’s trip. Kester 

v Mattis, Inc, 44 Mich App 22, 24 (1972). Here, Petrosky-Clark’s attendance at a weekly 

sales meeting, while certainly of benefit to her employer, as would be everything else that 

she does during the workday, is not the type of “special” benefit contemplated by this 

exception. As explained in Stark v L E Myers Co, 58 Mich App 439, 444 (1975), “If any 

benefits were so derived, it was not a special benefit to the employer but a benefit 

common to all employers.” That is, Petrosky-Clark went to work as she was required to 

do, a situation that falls squarely within the general rule that an employee is not acting 

within the scope of his or her employment when traveling to and from work. Because 

there was no genuine issue of material fact on this issue, Haas, in my judgment, was 

entitled to summary disposition, as the trial court so held. 

CORRIGAN, J., joins the statement of MARKMAN, J. 

 DAVIS, J., not participating. I recuse myself and am not participating because I 

was on the Court of Appeals panel in this case. See MCR 2.003(B).