Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,

J ustices 

# 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, ther e being no majority in favor of granting leave to appeal or taking other action. The motion for stay is DENIED as moot.

Y OUNG , J., would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

M ARKMAN , J. ( dissenting ).

I dissent from this Court’s denial of leave to appeal because plaintiff, in my judgment, has not set forth suffi cient evidence to sustain her respondeat superior claim in this automobile negligence action. Accord ingly, I would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstate th e decision of the trial court.

The trial court found, and the evidence es tablishes, that defe ndant 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 responsi ble for the wrongful acts of his servant committed while perfor ming some duty within the scope of hisI, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, 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 em ployment when traveling to and from work. Thomas v Certified Re frigeration, Inc , 392 Mich 623, 631 n 3 (19 74). Exceptions to this general rule exist where the employee is engage d 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 spec ial benefit from the employee’s trip. Kester
v Mattis, Inc , 44 Mich App 22, 24 (1972). Here, Pe trosky-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 sp ecial 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 th e general rule that an employee is not acting within the scope of his or her employment when traveling to an d 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.

C ORRIGAN , J., joins the statement of M ARKMAN , J.

D AVIS , J., not participating. I recuse myse lf and am not participating because I was on the Court of Appeals panel in this case. See MCR 2.003(B).