Lundberg v. State
Court of Appeals of
25 N.Y.2d 467, 255 N.E.2d
177, 360 N.Y.S.2d 947.
Prosser, pp. 657-659
Facts: Lundberg’s husband was killed by Sandilands’s
negligent operation of a car. Sandilands
works for the state of
Issue: Should an employer be held responsible for its
employee’s negligence?
Rule: An employer will be liable for the negligence of an
employee if the employee was acting under the scope of his employment, that is,
when the employee is doing something under the control of the employer
and in furtherance of his duties to that employer. Generally, however, driving one’s car to and
from work is not considered under the control of the employer.
Analysis: The court basically says that Sandilands was going
home of his own volition and on his own time, so the doctrine of respondeat
superior doesn’t apply.
The dissent says that
Sandilands’s employment made his travel necessary, and furthermore that the
state paid for that travel. The
dissenter would affirm the judgment against the state.
Conclusion: The judgment against the state is reversed.