Top
Stories
Featured Article Data Bank Focus: Getting Them to Stay February 8, 2013
Featured Article Data Bank Focus: See Where Workers Are Saying 'See Ya' February 8, 2013
Featured Article Data Bank Focus: A Shrinking Pool of Job Candidates February 8, 2013
Featured Article Honoring Diversity the Hawaiian Way February 8, 2013
Featured Article Honoring Diversity the McDonald's Way February 8, 2013
Featured Article Defending Diversity February 8, 2013
Featured Article Retirement Showdown February 7, 2013
Featured Article Visa Program Sparks Debate—Again February 7, 2013
Featured Article Homeward Bound February 7, 2013
Blog: The Practical Employer Workplace Social Media Policies Must Account for Generational Issues February 7, 2013
Blog: Work in Progress Kiss and Tell February 6, 2013
Latest News

Court Rules Employer Liable for Accident Involving Employee's Vehicle

  • By Sheena Harrison
  • Published: November 4, 2011
  • Updated: November 7, 2011
  • Comments (0)

A contractor can be held liable for an employee hitting and injuring another worker with a truck, even though the accident involved the employee's personal vehicle, a California appellate court has ruled.

Augustus Vogt, who worked for Performance Concrete of Placentia, California, sought damages against Ontario, Calif.-based framing contractor Herron Construction Inc. for injuries he suffered in 2007 on a job site. Vogt, who was preparing to pour concrete at the site, was hit by a truck after he asked Jesus Cruz, a Herron employee, to move his vehicle from the area, according to court records.

Herron argued that Cruz was acting in his own interest when he moved the truck to protect it from potential damage, and that Vogt's injuries should not be considered work-related.

However, the California Court of Appeal ruled unanimously that Mr. Cruz was acting within his job duties because he needed to move the truck for Performance to pour the concrete.

"There was evidence that, by moving his truck, Herron's employee furthered the overall construction of the project; the resulting risk of injury was inherent to the enterprise," the court ruled. "Moreover, even assuming that he had the subjective purpose of preventing damage to his own truck, moving the truck was necessary to his comfort, convenience and welfare while on the job and thus still within the scope of his employment."

Cruz's decision to move his truck was an "outgrowth" of his job duties with Herron because he was trying to assist Performance Concrete, the court ruled Tuesday in Augustus Vogt et al. vs. Herron Construction Inc. "A subcontractor whose employees interfere with timely performance by other subcontractors is not long for the construction industry."

The ruling overturned a lower court decision in favor of Herron.

Sheena Harrison writes for Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, email editors@workforce.com.

Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management's Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

Leave A Comment

Guidelines: Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. We will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. You are fully responsible for the content you post.

Stay Connected

Join our community for unlimited access to the latest tips, news and information in the HR world.

Follow Workforce on Twitter
HR Jobs
View All Job Listings

Search