Raleigh v. Performance Plumbing (2006)
From Judgepedia
Justice Hobbs wrote the opinion of the court (with partial dissent by Justice Mullarkey) which affirmed the appellate court ruling and held that an employer wasn't responsible for the damages caused by an employee when not acting within the scope of his employment.
The plaintiffs brought suit against Performance Plumbing and Heating, Inc. for damages they incurred in an automobile accident caused by Cory Weese, a Performance Plumbing employee driving his own truck on the way home from work. The trial court found that Weese was not acting within the scope of his employment for Performance Plumbing when he caused injury to the Raleighs. Nevertheless, the jury awarded damages against Performance Plumbing for negligently hiring Weese. At the time of his hire, Weese stated that he had a valid license and no moving violations, although his license was then under suspension. Since Performance Plumbing was not assigning Weese a company vehicle, they did no further investigation into Weese.
The appeals court invalidated the jury's negligent hiring award in light of its finding that Weese was not acting within the scope of his employment when the accident occurred. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's ruling, as Hobbs explained:The job required employees to commute to and from work on their own time. In this regard, this company is no different from any large number of Colorado employers who expect their employees to get to work on their own time and in their own way, and do not assume liability as part of their hiring decision to act as a surety for automobile accidents their employees may cause when commuting to and from work.[1]
News
The Colorado Civil Justice League filed an amicus brief on behalf of Performance Plumbing in this case. Jeff Weist, Colorado Civil Justice League's Executive Director, noted:"Colorado's small businesses can breathe easier knowing that lawsuit sanity prevailed in this case. In recognizing the importance of personal responsibility and rejecting the limitless liability of businesses, the Colorado Supreme Court generally agreed with the arguments laid out in the CCJL's amicus brief."[2]
