No. 2-- 06--0947 Fil ed: 7-17-07

______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APP ELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS SECOND DI STRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ BRU CE NU

LL E and JEA

N NUL LE, ) Ap

peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court ) o f Mc He nr y Co un t y. Plai ntif fs-Appel lan ts, )

) v. ) No. 05-- LA--177 ) MICHAEL KREWER, ) ) Defend ant ) Ho no r ab le ) Michael J. Su lli

van, (Lei f er Bu i l ders , Inc ., Def

endan t-App el l ee). ) Judge, Presi din g.

______________________________________________________________________________ JU STI CEBO WMA

N d el i v er ed th e op i n i on of th e c our t: Bruce and Jean

Null e appeal the ci rcuit court's order dism

is si ng thei r complai nt agai nst Leifer Buil ders, Inc. , s eeki

n g d am ag es ari si n g f rom a m otor v eh i cl e acc i den t. The Nul

le s' v ehi cl e coll ide d wi th that of Mic

hael Krewer, an em

ploy ee of Lei fer Bui l de rs , wh

o wa s r un ni ng a p ers ona

l erran d on his pe r so na l t ime ina personal veh ic le that was dis

pla yi ng advertisi

ng f or Leif er Bui lde rs. The Nulle s so ught t o ho ld Le ifer Bu ilder s r es po nsible und er a t heo ry o f respondeat su pe rior . The

ci rcui t court dis miss ed Le ifer Bu ilde r s fr o m t he ac t io n a nd t he Nu lles ap pe al. We affir m. I. BACKG

ROUND On Septem ber 29, 20 03, M ichael Kr ewe r w as d riving a p ickup t ru ck t hat cr os sed into t he la nesof on com i ng traf f i c an d col l i ded wi th the Nul l es' vehi cle, ca usi ng d am ages . The

tru ck w as Krew er 's personal

veh ic le , but he was re qui

re d to have i

t as a condition of his em

ploy me nt with L ei ferNo. 2-- 06--0947

-2-

Buil ders, and h

e used i t t o run errands for wo rk and to travel between jobsi tes. At t he t ime of t he
co lli sion, Kr ew er 's t ruc k w as dis pla ying mag ne t ic s ign s fo rLe ifer Bu ilde r s. Ho we ve r , it is undi sputed that Krewer wasnot tr

avel i ng f or wor k. Th e c ol l i si on oc cu rre d outs i deof

hi s workin

g hours, when he was traveli

ng for personal reasons. The Null es f i l ed a c om pl ai nt a gai ns t Kr ew er, se ek

i ng rec ove ry f orda mag es t he y su st ain ed in t he col l i sion. They

la ter am ended the com

pla in t t o add Leif

er Bui lde rs as a def endan t, all egi ng that Krewer was dri vi ng ne gli gently whi le in the s cope of hi s em

ploy me nt. Leif er Bui lde rs deni ed that Krewer was actin g in the scope o f his em

ploy me nt and m oved to dism

is s under section 2--619(a)(9) of the Code

of C i vi l Procedu re (735 ILCS 5/2--6 19(a)( 9) (West 200 4)). The pa r t ies su bmit t ed affid avi ts and deposi tion testim

ony to the trial

court . The evi

dence showed that a f ew m onths be f ore the c oll

i sion, Bre tt Lei f er, the sole proprietor of Leifer Buil ders, gave Krewer two magne tic si gns adv ertisi ng Lei fer Bui lde rs. The si

gns were de s i gn

ed to
ma gnetic al ly adhere to a vehi

cl e's s ide s and i

ncl uded Leifer Bui

lde rs' n am e, log o, cat ch phr ase , a nd tel eph one n um ber. Lei fer av erred that he did n

ot off er add itio nal co mpensa t ion r elat ed t o t he us e o f the signs. The pu rp ose of th e s i gn s w as

to al low em

ploy ees to be iden

tif ie d at jobsi

tes as well a s to advertis e. But ac cord

i ng to Le i f er, em pl oyee s w ere

not required to displ

ay the signs on thei

r vehi cl es and there were no a dve

rse c onse quen

ces i f they ref use d to do so. Ac cordi

ng to Le i f

er, em ploye es w ere in structed to remove the s ign s durin g nonworkin

g hours and the failu r e t o do so co uld r es ult in seri ous consequenc es, in

cl udin g termi nation of em ploy me nt. Leif er averred that he spe cific ally in structed Krewer to remove the s ign s f rom his veh

ic le when Krewer was n

ot working.No. 2-- 06--0947

-3-

Krewer av er r ed t ha t Le ifer ha d in st ruc t ed him to remove the s ign

s whi le he was off work, but that he had for go t t en t o r emove t hem on t he da y of t he co lli sion. He also averred

tha t Le i f er d i d n ot pay hi m to dis pla y the si gns an d that he was not required to displ ay them. K rewer bel ie ved that t he signs were advert isem

ents meant to in

duce ot hers to call

Leif er Buil ders. A t hi s dep osi ti on, K rew er te sti

f i ed tha t he usua l l y l ef t the si gn s on his veh ic le , except when he took them

off to wash the truck. He stat ed t ha t o t he remp lo yee s a lso left t he sig ns o n t he ir vehi cles. He also stated, however, t hat Lei fer told h im there was no reason to leav e them on when he was not wor kin

g and that Leifer spe ci fi

cally in structed hi

m to t ake them off

when he was at bars. Krewer sa id t ha t he co uld have refus ed t he sig ns, an d, wh en as ke d w he t he rhe de r ive d a ny be ne fit from hav in g the signs on h

is truck, he stat ed: "O nly t hing I c ou ld t hink

wa s p ut t he m o n t he r e, ad ve r t ise men t fo rhim. We would get m

ore jobs, possi

bl y get a b onus

or rais e because

we would b e turnin

g jobs fas t because we h

ad advertisemen

ts, wh at ev er ; p eo ple se e t he sig n, ca ll this guy f or estima te or whatever

is what I though t." Krewer t es t ified t ha t he wa s ne ve rt o ld he woul d get bonuses f

or brin gin g in work and that he nev

er received any

such bonuses. The t rial co ur t gr ant ed t he mot ion t o d ismi ss and t he Nu lles moved for re co nsider at ion. The courtal lowed the Nul

le s to supplem

ent thei r motion an

d they fi le d aff ida vi ts from Je ss Jensen

and Greg Cal houn, who were past em

ploy ees of Le if

er Bui lde rs. Jensen

averred that between

200 0 and 2005, he h

ad signs attached to his

truck adve rt ising Leifer B uilder s and that Leif er neve r instructed him t o r emove t he signs. Calho un ave rr ed t hat bet wee n 200 0 and 2004, he di spl ay ed signs f or Leif erNo. 2-- 06--0947

-4-

Bui l ders on hi s truck and that Leifer wan ted him to keep t he sig ns o n t he t ruc k a s mu ch as po ss ible during both work in

g and nonworking hours, except when he was at bars or t averns. The trial cou rt d en i ed th e m oti on to reconsi der. Appl

yi ng Suprem

e Court Rule 304(a) (210 I ll. 2d R. 3 04(a)) , t he co ur t fou nd t hat t her e wa s no just re aso n t o d elay enfor cement or app eal. The Nu lles ap pe al. II. AN AL YSIS The Nulles c ont end t hat , be cau se t her e wa s ad ver t ising o n t he t ruc k, an d b ec au se Le ifer t o ld ot her em pl oyee s to kee

p s i gn s on

the i r v eh i cl esdur i ng non work i ng hou rs , th ere wa s a n i ss ueof
ma terial fac t wh et he rKr ew er wa s a ct ing in t he sc op e o f his employment a t t he t ime of t he co lli sion. Lei fer Builder s ar gue s t hat t he pr ese nce o f the signs o n t he truck was i nsuf fi ci ent as a m

atter of law to mak e i t vi ca ri ous l y l i ab l e f or K rew er' s n eg l i ge nc e, b ec au se

he wa s d ri vi ng hi s p ers ona l ve hi cl e f or personal reasons. "In ruli ng on a section 2--61 9 motion to dism iss, a court

may consider pleadi

ngs, depositions, and aff idav its." Gi ll ey

v. Ki ddel , 37 2 I ll. A pp . 3d 27 1, 27 4 ( 20 07 )
. T he qu es t io n o n a pp ea l is whether th e e x i ste

nce o f a gen

ui ne i ssue of material f act sh oul d ha ve precl uded the d i sm i ssa l or, ab sent a n i ss ueof mate ri al f ac t, wh ether d i sm i ss al i s p rope r as a m atte r of la w. See Gil

le y , 37 2 I ll. Ap p. 3d a t 274. We rev

i ew th e m atter de novo . Gil

le y , 372 Ill . App. 3d at 274. Ge ne r ally, a p ers on i

njure d by the ne gl i ge nc e of an othe r m us t se ek hi s or her re medy fro m the pe rs on wh o caus ed th e i

nj ury . Bagent v. Bl

essi ng Care Corp. , 224 Ill . 2d 154, 163 (2007). "Under t he t heo ry o f respondeat su pe ri or , an em pl oy er ca n b e l i ab l e f or th e tor ts o f an emp lo yee , bu t o nly f orthose t ort s that ar e commi tt ed withi n the scope o f the em

ploym ent." Bag ent , 224 Ill . 2d at 163.No. 2-- 06--0947

1 The Thi rd Restatement of A

gency states the test in m

ore general

t er ms, bu t wit h e ss en t ially th e s am e m ea n i n g. S ee Re sta tem en t (Th i rd) of A gen cy §7 .07 , C om

men t b , at 199 (2 006). -5- The pla in tif f h as the burden

of sh owing a contemporaneous relationshi p between the tortious act and the scope of em

ploy me nt. See Bag ent , 224 Ill . 2d at 165. The Il l i n oi s S up re me C our

t h as adopte d th

e f orm ul a s et ou t i n the Se con

d Res tate men

t of Agen cy 1 to deter

m i n e w h eth er an em pl oy ee ' s a cts ar e w i th i n th e s cop e of

em pl oy men t. "( 1) Co ndu ct o f a s er van t is wit hin t he s co pe o f emp lo yment if, bu t o nly if: ( a) it is o f t he kin d h e is emp lo yed t o pe r fo r m; (b) it occur s substantial

ly withi n the author ized tim

e and space li

mi ts; (c) i t is actuate d, at l eas t in

part, by a purp ose to serv

e the master * **[.]
*** (2) Co nd uc t o f a s er va nt is no t wit hin t he sc o pe o f emp lo yment if it is differe nt in kind f rom t hat aut hor ized, far be yond t he au t hor ized t ime or spa ce limits, or t oo litt le act uat ed by a purp ose to serv

e the master." Restatem

en t (Second) of

Ag ency §228 a t 504 (195 8). See Bag ent , 224 Ill . 2d at 164. Despite the Null es' statement to t he co nt rar y , "a l l threecri teri a of
se cti on 22 8 * ** mus t be met t o co nc lud e t ha t an emp lo ye e was ac ti ng wi thi n th e s cop e of
em ploym en t." Bag ent , 224 Ill . 2d at 165. A court mus t consider al

l of the surroundin

g ci rcumstances and each cas e must dep end o n i ts own f acts. Bag ent , 22 4 I ll. 2 d a t 16 5. " ' On ly if no r ea so na ble pe rs on cou l d c onc l

ude f rom the ev i de nc e that a

n e m pl oyeewa s acti

ng wi thi n th e c ours e of
em ploy me nt shoul d a

co ur t hold as a matt er of law t hat t he emplo yee wa s no t so act ing.' " Bag ent , 224 Ill . 2d at 165-66, quot in g Pyn e v. Wi tmer , 129 Il

l . 2d 351 , 359 (1 989).No. 2-- 06--0947

2 Al though this

opini on is unpubl is hed, we ar

e f ree to dee m i t persuasi ve . See Osm

an v. F ord Motor Co. , 359 Ill . App. 3d 367, 374 (2005) ("[t ]he f act [t hat] one court hasus ed ce r t ain re aso ning in an un pu blish ed o pin io n does no t ba rco ur t s in t his s t at e fr o m us ing t he sa me r ea so ning in t he ir deci sions" ). -6- Al though the part ies contest t he satisf action of the f

irst cri terion, we are will

in g to assum

e that there is a m aterial factual is sue whether K

rewer's act of dri

vi ng hi s truck wh ile displaying t he signs
was the ki nd of conduct he was em

ploy ed to perform. However, at the tim e of the coll

is ion, K rewer wa s driv in g hi s truck on a personal m is si on durin

g hi s nonworki

ng hours. Thus, we h

old th at th e Null es have provided n

o evi dence to show an i ssue of m aterial fact whe ther Krewer wasac t ing wit hin th e ti me a n d s pa ce l i m i ts o f h i s e m pl oy men t. In Gianno ble v. P & M He at ing& Air Condi tioni ng, Inc. , 233 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 10 51, 105 8 (199 2), t he Fi rs t Di stri ct hel d that a n e m pl oyeewa s n

ot act ingin the s co pe o f his employment w hen he d ro ve
a co mpany-p ro vided va n dur ing no nwo rk inghours to per form gratuitous repairs f

or a fam il y m em ber and was then i

nvol ved i n a motor veh i cle ac ciden t on the way

hom e. The co ur t held t hat t he
em ploy ee was per for ming

th e k i n d of con du ct h e w as em pl oy ed to perform, b

ut t hat the conduct was not sub stan

tia l l y wi thi n a uthori zed ti me an d spa ce l i m i ts. Gia nno ble , 233 Ill . App. 3d at 1062. Fo re ign aut hor ities a re mor e dir ect ly on po int. In Hale v. Spitzer Dodge, Inc. , No. 04A P-- 1379 ( Oh io Ap

p. Jun e 29, 2 006), 2 t he Ohio Co ur t of Ap pea ls add re ssed t he t ime and sp ac e l i m i ts of t he scope of e m ploym en t in the c ontex

t of an em ploye e' s act of dri

ving a vehi cl e that displ

ay ed adve rt ising

f or the em pl oye r. The re , t he employee was a sa lespe rso n for a ca r d ealer ship and dr ove
a de m ons trator ve hi cl e that di sp l ay

ed ad ve rti si ng f orthe dealershi

p. The em ploy ee al so admi

tt ed that he wa s c o nst ant ly pr o sp ec t ing fo r c lients, eve n when he was awa y from wo rk . B ut beca use t heNo. 2-- 06--0947

-7-

em ploy ee wa s i nv ol ve d i n a col l i si on wh ile o n a pu r ely p er so na l miss io n, t he co ur t he ld that he was not ac ti n g sub sta n ti al l y wi th i n th e ti me a n d s pace l i m i ts of h i s e m pl oy men t. The court det ermi

ned that the "i nci dental ben efi t" that t he em

ploy er deriv ed f rom t he ad ve r t ising wa s ins uffic ien t t o su bje ct it to l i ab i l i ty. Ha le , slip op. at __. Further, the fact that the empl oyeewas constantl

y prospecti

ng was li kewise i ns uf f i ci en t, as an arg um en t to the con trar y " ' as kstoo mu ch, f

or it would hold the deal er
r es po nsib le at al

l tim es.' " Ha le , sli

p op. at __, quot in

g State ex rel . Ci ty M otor Co. v. Di stri ct Court , 166 M ont. 52, 58 , 530 P.2 d 486, 4 89 (19 75). Simil ar ly, in A tl an ta B l ue Pri n t & Ph o t o Re pr o du ct io n C o . v. Ke mp , 204 S.E.2d 515, 516 (Ga. A pp. 197 4), the

Ge orgi a C ourt of Appeals hel

d that t he m

ere fact t hat an emplo yer's a dver t ising
was pr int ed o n t he ex t er io ro f a t ruc k d id not create an iss

ue of m aterial fact whe n the em ploy ee was on a personal

mi ssi on, taking h

is fam il y to a football

gam e. The court det ermi

ned that the fa

ct that t he truck had

the em pl oyer' s n am e on it, "thereby

possib ly conferri ng som e i nci dental benefit t o t he
em ploy er by way of adverti sem

ent, does not mak e t he us e w it hi n th e e m pl oyee 's sc opeof
em ploym en t." Ke mp , 20 4 S. E.2d

at 5 16;se e al so Sharp v. Egler , 65 8 F .2d 480 , 486-8 7 (7th C i r. 1981) ( de ale rst ick er o n c o mpa ny ca rdid n ot prov i de en oug h b en ef i t to em pl oy er to pla ce em ploy ee dri vi ng th e ca r f or a pers onal

use i n the sc ope of

em ploym en t at the ti me of an acc i den t). The Nul le s poin t t o t he af fi davi ts suggestin

g that Leif

er in structed his em

ploy ees to displ

ay t he signs on their vehi

cles ev en during thei

r nonwor kin

g hours. We f

irst observe that , although t hese af f i da v i ts mi ght suggest that Leif

er in structed ot her

em ploy ees to displ

ay the signs duri

ng those hour s, they do not contradict the evi dence that Lei

fer di d not so instruct Krewer. In any even t, suc h a n i ns truc ti on would not subj ect Leifer Bui lders t o liabil ity her e. In Ci ty Motor C o. , the empl

oyer provided t he emplo yee wit h a de monst ra t or vehicle o n t he co ndit ion t ha t , a ltho ugh the em ploy eeNo. 2-- 06--0947

-8-

co uld use it for perso nal

busi ness, the vehi

cle was " ' to be used as a

demo nst ra t or .' " Ci

ty Motor C o. , 166 Mont. at 56, 530 P. 2d a t 488 . N ever t heless, t he fact t hat t he employee was demo nst ra t ing t he vehicle while co nduc t ing his per so nal business was insufficientto pu t t ha t pe r so na l bu sine ss wit hin t he sc o pe o f his e mplo yment . Simila r ly, e ve n if Le i f er h ad i n str uc ted K re wer to advertis e for Leifer Bu i l ders whi le usi

ng the tr uck for his personal b usin ess, he neverthel ess conduct ed that busi ness outs i de th e s cop e of

h i s e m pl oy men t. III. CONCLUSION In su m , i t i s u nd i spute d that K

rewer wasnot on

du ty when the coll is ion occurred. Instead, he was on a purel

y pe rsonal mi ssion unrelated t o his em

ploym en t. Thus , al

though Lei f er Bu i l ders
ma y have d er ived so me incident al benefit fr om t he ad ver t ising, Kr ewe r's ac t wa s n ot wit hin t he t ime and space l

i m i ts of h i s em pl oym en t. Beca use al l three prong s of

the R estatem en t form ul a are required, th e N

ul l es h av e f ai l ed to sh ow that L eif

er B ui l ders i s s ub j ec t to l i ab i l i

ty asa m atte r of la w. The j udgme

nt of the ci

rcuit court o f M cHenry

County i s af

fi rmed. Af fi rmed. BYR NE an d ZEN OFF , JJ., c oncu

r.