|
4044 The commercial traveler rule, which, for workers' compensation purposes, makes an employee's conduct while traveling on the employer's business within the scope of employment during the entire period of travel does not apply to claims of vicarious liability under the theory of respondeat superior; an employee usually headquartered in Georgia who was on his employer's business in California but had completed his assignment and was preparing to return was not acting within the scope of employment while in the drive-through lane at a fast food restaurant where he went to purchase food for himself.CitationSUNDERLAND v LOCKHEED (Traveling Employee) 130 CA4 1 [See: LabC 3600 etseq; Wiseman v Industrial Acc Com 46 C2 570; Yamaguchi v Harnsmut 106 CA4 472, T/AT 3/03; Tognazzini v San Luis Coastal USD 86 CA4 1053, T/AT 3/01]
|
|
