Opinion ID: 2617564
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: an employee, instructed to complete a task by an employer while traveling to work, may be within the scope of employment during the commute.

Text: Skinner and the employer recognize the general rule that an employee, going to or coming from work, is not considered to be within the scope of employment. [6] However, Skinner insists that Braums' direction to Razavizadeh to pick up supplies on her way to work is an exception to the going and coming rule. [7] Braums argues that because the employee's conduct had been of no benefit to it when the accident occurred, Razavizadeh was outside the scope of employment. We disagree. This Court has recognized exceptions to the going and coming rule. Liability is imposed upon the employer if the employee is rendering a service, either express or implied, to the employer with his/her consent. [8] An exception also exists if the trip involves an incidental benefit to the employer not common to ordinary commuting trips of the work force. [9] Because the facts in Haco Drilling Co. v. Burchette, 364 P.2d 674, 677 (Okla. 1961) are similar to those presented here, it is instructive. In Haco, it was the practice for members of a drilling crew to car pool. The person responsible for driving was also to provide water and ice at the drilling site. Early one morning, the employee-driver in Haco picked up two co-workers, obtained ice and water, and was on the way to work when an accident occurred. The car being driven was a private one; the wreck happened before the work shift began; and the employee was not being paid at the time of the accident. We recognized the general rule that the employment relationship does not exist during a commute to and from work in Haco. Nevertheless, we held that the driver was acting within the scope of his employment when the accident occurred. The water and ice were necessary to the workforce of the drilling rig. The driver's pick up and delivery of the water was incidental to the business operation. Braums attempts to distinguish Haco on the premise that because the supplies were not delivered, the employee did not confer a benefit on the employer. The distinction is unpersuasive where, as here, Razavizadeh alleges that she was under the express direction of her supervisor to drive to the Rockwell store to obtain and transport supplies to the North Western location. She would not have been in the location of the accident without instructions of her employer. Presumably, the supplies were to be used for the employer's benefit once they were delivered. They were incidental to the operations of Braums' North Western store, and Razavizadeh would have delivered the supplies if she had not been involved in the accident. Therefore, we find that an employee, instructed to complete a task by an employer while traveling to work, may be within the scope of employment during the commute.