Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Brief

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

  • Law School Case Brief

Timmons v. Silman - 99-3264 ( La. 05/17/00), 761 So. 2d 507

Rule:

Generally, an identifiable deviation from a business trip for personal reasons takes the employee out of the course of employment until the employee returns to the route of the business trip, unless the deviation is so small as to be disregarded as insubstantial.

Facts:

Defendant Stacie Michelle Silman ("Silman"), a clerical assistant of defendant Catherine Stagg ("Stagg"), was instructed to go to the post office and refill the firm’s postage meter. Using her personal car, Silman refilled the firm’s postage meter, but rather than returning to the firm, she decided to embark on a personal errand and proceeded to the bank to cash her Christmas bonus check. On her way to the bank, Silman hit plaintiff Michael Timmon’s car. Timmon filed suit against Silman, her automobile liability insurer, and Stagg's insurer, State Farm. Timmon claimed that Silman was in the course and scope of her employment with Stagg at the time of the accident, and, therefore, Stagg was vicariously liable. After a bench trial, the Court dismissed State Farm finding that Stagg was not vicariously liable as Silman was not in the course and scope of her employment at the time of the accident due to her personal deviation. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The State Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine the correctness of the lower courts' judgments.

Issue:

Did the lower courts err in finding that Silman was not in the course and scope of her employment at the time of the accident, thereby, rendering Stagg free from any vicarious liability? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The Court affirmed the judgment of the lower courts, noting that at the time of the accident, Silman was on a personal errand unrelated to her employment. Silman was not instructed, or expected, to go to the bank for her employer. According to the Court, the deviation was incidental to an employment errand. Defendant employee's motivation for going to the bank was purely personal. The record supported the finding that it was the incidents of defendant employee's personal deviation itself that were operative to producing the accident.

Access the full text case

Essential Class Preparation Skills

  • How to Answer Your Professor's Questions
  • How to Brief a Case
  • Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required)

Essential Class Resources

  • CivPro
  • Contracts
  • Constitutional Law
  • Corporations /Business Organizations
  • Criminal Law
  • Criminal Procedure/Investigation
  • Evidence
  • Legal Ethics/Professional Responsibility
  • Property
  • Secured Transactions
  • Torts
  • Trusts & Estates