Opinion ID: 1627585
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Agency/Respondeat Superior

Text: Pryor argues that Dealy was acting as an agent of Brown & Root at the time of the accident and that Brown & Root is thus liable for his actions. The agency issue centers upon the fact that Dealy was driving a Brown & Root vehicle when he hit Pryor and had been working for Brown & Root on the morning of the accident. In response, Brown & Root argues that Dealy was not acting as its agent at the time of the accident. Brown & Root argues that the principle of respondeat superior and not the law of agency governs this case. In Southern Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Turner, 571 So.2d 1015, 1018 (Ala.1990), judgment vacated, Southern Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Turner, 500 U.S. 901, 111 S.Ct. 1678, 114 L.Ed.2d 73 (1991), affirmed on remand, Southern Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Turner, 586 So.2d 854 (Ala.1991), this Court stated that the relationship between agency and respondeat superior is often confused because the distinction between the law of agency and the law of respondeat superior is subtle. This Court, quoting 3 Am.Jur.2d Agency § 280 at 783 (1986), held: `The general rule that a principal is liable for the torts of his agent is not grounded on agency principles. This is evident from the holdings that a principal may be held [liable] for his agent's tort committed in the course and scope of the agent's employment even though the principal does not authorize, ratify, participate in, or know of, such misconduct, or even if he forbade or disapproved of the act complained of. Fundamentally, there is no distinction to be drawn between the liability of a principal for the tortious act of his agent and the liability of an employer or master for the tortious act of his employee or servant. In both cases, the tort liability is based on the employer and employee, rather than any agency, principle; the liability for the tortious act of the employee is grounded upon the maxim of `respondeat superior' and is to be determined by considering, from a factual standpoint, the question whether the tortious act was done while the employee, whether agent or servant, was acting within the scope of his employment.' 571 So.2d at 1018. In Autrey v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Alabama, 481 So.2d 345 (Ala.1985), this Court stated: `The liability of a corporation for the torts of its employees, whether agent or servant, is grounded upon the principle of `respondeat superior,' not the principles of agency. The factual question to be determined is whether or not the act complained of was done, either by agent or servant, while acting within the line and scope of his employment. The corporation or principal may be liable in tort for the acts of its servants or agents done within the scope of employment, real or apparent, even though it did not authorize or ratify such acts or even expressly forbade them.' (Citations omitted.) 481 So.2d at 347-48, quoting National States Ins. Co. v. Jones, 393 So.2d 1361, 1367 (Ala. 1980) (quoting in turn from Old Southern Life Ins. Co. v. McConnell, 52 Ala.App. 589, 594, 296 So.2d 183, 186 (1974)). In the instant case, the trial court properly held that the principle of respondeat superior was applicable. This Court has held: To recover for damages for injuries sustained in an automobile accident against the driver's employer upon a theory of respondeat superior, it is incumbent upon plaintiff to prove that the collision occurred while the driver was within the scope of his employment, and happened while he was in the accomplishment of objectives within the line of his duties. Perdue v. Mitchell, 373 So.2d 650, 653 (Ala.1979), citing Cook v. Fullbright, 349 So.2d 23 (Ala.1977). Because Pryor's claims against Brown & Root are based on the doctrine of respondeat superior, the burden is on Pryor to present substantial evidence that the collision occurred while Dealy was acting within the line and scope of his employment. Williams v. Hughes Moving & Storage Co., 578 So.2d 1281, 1283 (Ala.1991). In this case, Dealy left work and went out of his way home to go sailing with friends. At the time of the accident, he was returning home. Even Pryor concedes that the evidence without question seems to indicate that Mr. Dealy was on his own personal business at the time of the wreck. However, Pryor contends that, because Dealy was driving a Brown & Root vehicle, the fact that Dealy was on personal business is not sufficient to sever Brown & Root's liability. Use of a vehicle owned by an employer creates an administrative presumption of agency and a presumption that the employee was acting within the scope of his employment, as that concept is used in the law of respondeat superior liability, but this administrative presumption is not in itself evidence. Durbin v. B.W. Capps & Son, Inc., 522 So.2d 766, 766 (Ala.1988); Rogers v. Hughes, 252 Ala. 72, 75, 39 So.2d 578, 579 (1949); Tullis v. Blue, 216 Ala. 577, 114 So. 185 (1927). In Durbin, the Court stated: `It is well settled that those presumptions do arise from proof of the defendant's ownership of the vehicle; but it is well settled also that they are prima facie presumptions merely, or, as they are sometimes called, administrative presumptions, based upon considerations of fairness and convenience in placing the burden of proof. They are not in themselves evidence, and in practice their effect is merely to impose upon the defendant the burden of showing that the driver was not his agent, or that, if he was, he was not acting within the scope of his authority or in the course of his employment. If the evidence thereon is in conflict, or leads to doubtful inference only, the issue should go to the jury. If, however, the evidence, without dispute, rebuts the facts thus presumed, there is no issue for the jury, and the general affirmative charge should be given for the defendant on request.' 522 So.2d at 767, quoting Tullis v. Blue, 216 Ala. at 578, 114 So. at 187. (Citations omitted.) See also Williams v. Hughes Moving & Storage Co., supra . The Durbin Court further stated: `When plaintiff proves such ownership of the [vehicle] by defendant, and thereby brings into being the presumption [that the driver was his agent], he need not offer further proof that the operator of the [vehicle] was the agent of defendant, and [was acting] in the line and scope of his authority, until and unless defendant has offered proof that he was not acting for defendant in the line and scope of his authority. And if defendant makes that proof and it is not contradicted, either expressly or inferentially, defendant is entitled to the affirmative charge. But if there is any evidence which reflects upon the credibility of that evidence by defendant on that question, or from which an inference may be drawn to a different result, whether such evidence was produced by defendant or plaintiff, the question of whether the operator of the [vehicle] was defendant's agent acting in the line and scope of his authority should be submitted to the jury.' 522 So.2d at 767, quoting Craft v. Koonce, 237 Ala. 552, 554, 187 So. 730, 731 (1939). Brown & Root maintains that its evidence that Dealy was not acting within the scope of his authority or in the course of his employment was sufficient to rebut the presumption created by Dealy's use of the Brown & Root vehicle. The trial court held that Brown & Root could not be held liable for Dealy's actions because, the court determined, the evidence showed that he was not acting within the line and scope of his employment when he deviated from his normal route home in order to go sailing with friends. The trial court stated: [Dealy] had clearly abandoned the business of furthering the interest of Brown & Root. Sunday was not a normal work day for him, and he had clearly abandoned any attempts to further the interest of the employer. The mere fact that he was driving a truck owned by the employer is not sufficient to base a finding of liability upon in the absence of other facts. No other facts are presented which could support a finding of liability by Brown & Root. However, the record reveals additional evidence bearing on the issue of whether Dealy was acting in the line and scope of his authority. Brown & Root's policy was to allow its employees nominal personal use of the company-issued vehicles. [1] However, nowhere in the company policy did Brown & Root define what constitutes nominal personal use. Nevertheless, Brown & Root argues that Dealy's use of the truck on the day of the accident was a departure from the allowable nominal personal use and thus prevents any liability to Pryor. Pryor argues that the question whether Dealy's use of the vehicle on July 18, 1993, was nominal is one for the jury to determine. Pryor submitted evidence that Dealy's supervisor knew that Dealy had access to no other vehicle and was using the company vehicle for personal use and that Dealy's supervisor also used his own vehicle for personal use. Dealy had used the company truck as his exclusive vehicle since January 1991i.e., for 30 months before the accident. Dealy testified that he knew that company policy provided that he was to use the vehicle only for travel to and from work and on the job, but that he used it for everything, including pleasure trips, and that his supervisor was fully aware of this. Dealy said that even though his superiors knew he was using the vehicle for pleasure, they never reprimanded him for that use. Moreover, even after the accident, Brown & Root did not, for income tax purposes, treat the value of Dealy's personal use of the vehicle as part of Dealy's compensation. This case is similar to Williams v. Hughes Moving & Storage Co., supra . In Williams, a company vehicle was involved in an accident, and the injured party sued the owner of the vehicle and the employee in possession of the vehicle. The company policy was for company vehicles to be returned to the office after each day's work. The employee, however, had driven a truck home on several occasions. He did this even though his employer required that trucks be returned even if the parking lot was locked, in which case the truck was to be left outside the lot and a security guard would bring the truck into the lot later; the company policy toward employees who took company vehicles home without specific authorization was to terminate and prosecute them. 578 So.2d at 1282. The employee apparently never faced discipline in any manner for taking company trucks home, just as Dealy never faced any discipline for his exclusive personal use of the Brown & Root vehicle, even though Brown & Root was fully aware of this use. The trial court in Williams granted the company's motion for a directed verdict. The employer argued that because the employee took the vehicle home with him, in direct violation of company policy, he could not be considered to have been acting in the line and scope of his employment. This Court disagreed and reversed, holding that [t]he mere fact that [the employee] was acting against company policy is not ... conclusive as to the question of [the employee's] status at the time of the accident. 578 So.2d at 1283. See also Lawler Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Tarver, 492 So.2d 297 (Ala. 1986) (holding a jury question existed as to whether the employee was acting from personal motives or in the line and scope of his employment); Solmica of the Gulf Coast, Inc. v. Braggs, 285 Ala. 396, 232 So.2d 638 (1970) (holding that an employer could be held liable for the unauthorized acts of the employee). As in this case, the employer's ownership of the vehicle in Williams was undisputed. Therefore, it was Brown & Root's burden to rebut the presumption that Dealy was acting within the line and scope of his employment. In order for [the employer] to rebut the presumption and prevent submission of [the plaintiff's] claims to a jury, its evidence must eliminate any question as to whether [the employee] was acting in the scope of his employment by having this truck ... when the accident occurred. 578 So.2d at 1285. Brown & Root's only evidence that Dealy was not acting in the scope of his employment was the evidence that company policy prohibited employees from using vehicles for anything other than nominal personal use. Brown & Root argues that Dealy violated this policy by using the truck to meet with friends, and, therefore, he was acting outside the scope of his employment. However, even aside from the fact that the company policy did not define nominal personal use, the fact that Dealy was using the Brown & Root vehicle as his sole personal vehicle, with the knowledge of and in the same manner as his supervisor, supports an inference that his use of the vehicle was within the line and scope of his employment. Thus, this case is quite similar to Williams; a suggestion that Dealy's use was not authorized falls far short of rebutting the presumption that [Dealy] was acting within the scope of his employment, because of the fact that [Brown & Root] had not enforced the policy in the past, with respect to [Dealy], but had virtually condoned [Dealy's] practice of using the company vehicle for personal use. 578 So.2d at 1285. Since the accident, Dealy had not used a Brown & Root vehicle as his exclusive mode of transportation. He also has use of another vehicle, but he testified that he still uses the Brown & Root vehicle for pleasure trips. In addition, Pryor argues that Brown & Root ratified the tortious conduct of Dealy and should thus face liability for his actions. As to ratification, Pryor maintains that Brown & Root received a direct benefit from the accident in question. The record shows that it is Brown & Root's policy to charge repair costs to the client for whom it is working when an accident occurs on the job. In this case, Brown & Root was working for the Champion Paper Company in Courtland. Brown & Root charged Champion Paper Company for the cost to repair the damage to Dealy's vehicle sustained in the July 18, 1993, accident. In addition to the cost of repairs, the cost of the truck and the costs of operating and maintaining the truck were charged by Brown and Root as an expense associated with the Champion Paper project. Although it is arguable that the accident provided no benefit to Brown & Root, these facts further support the inference that Brown & Root acknowledged that Dealy was acting within the line and scope of his employment at the time of the accident. Pryor maintains that had Brown & Root charged Dealy for the repair costs, or had it simply paid for the repairs itself, then ratification would not have occurred. In contrast, by accepting payment from Champion for the cost of repairs, Pryor argues, Brown & Root accepted a benefit that raises a jury question as to whether Brown & Root ratified Dealy's act. This evidence of ratification further supports Pryor's argument that it is a jury question whether the collision occurred while Dealy was acting within the scope of his employment pursuant to the accomplishment of objectives within the line of his duty. Perdue v. Mitchell, 373 So.2d 650 (Ala.1979). Given the question whether Brown & Root condoned Dealy's personal use of the vehicle and the question whether it ratified his acts, we conclude that the evidence presents a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Brown & Root is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Thus, as to the claim asserting liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior, the summary judgment is due to be reversed and this case remanded for trial on that claim.