## Facts

- David Carter, a pedestrian, was struck and injured by a car driven by Alice F. Reynolds; Donna Carter asserted derivative claims.
- Reynolds was a part-time, non-professional employee of an accounting firm performing audit-related detail work.
- Reynolds’s duties required work both at the firm’s office and at client locations; she spent a substantial portion of her time traveling to clients.
- The firm did not provide a company vehicle; Reynolds was required to use her personal car for client travel and was reimbursed mileage.
- On the accident date, Reynolds drove from the office to a client site and, after completing the client work, began driving toward her home when the accident occurred.
- The central dispute was whether Reynolds was acting within the scope of employment during the drive home from the client location, making the firm liable under respondeat superior.

## Issues

1. Whether the going-and-coming rule bars vicarious liability when an employee causes an accident while driving home after work-related travel.
2. Whether an employer is vicariously liable when the employee is required to use a personal vehicle for mandatory client visits and is returning home from a client site at the time of the accident.
3. Whether the required-vehicle/dual-purpose exception places the employee’s travel within the scope of employment.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed the judgment imposing respondeat superior liability on the employer.
- The Court held the firm was vicariously liable because Reynolds’s required use of her personal vehicle to further the firm’s business fit within the required-vehicle, dual-purpose exception to the going-and-coming rule.
- The Court affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision upholding partial summary judgment for the Carters on the firm’s vicarious liability.

## Legal Principles

- Under the general going-and-coming rule, an employer is ordinarily not liable for an employee’s negligence while commuting to or from work because the employee is typically outside the scope of employment.
- An exception applies when the employer requires the employee to use a personal vehicle as a condition of employment to perform work duties; the employer’s requirement can expand the scope of employment to include travel that would otherwise be treated as commuting.
- Where required-vehicle use serves both the employee’s personal purpose (getting home) and the employer’s business purpose (making the vehicle available for required work travel), the trip may fall within the scope of employment for respondeat superior.
- In applying the exception, the key factor is the employer’s requirement and resulting business benefit from the employee’s vehicle availability, not the employee’s voluntary choice to drive.

## Conclusion

The court held the employer vicariously liable because the employee’s employer-required use of her personal car for client visits brought her drive home from a client location within the scope of employment under the required-vehicle, dual-purpose exception to the going-and-coming rule.


Carter v. Reynolds, 815 A.2d 460 (N.J. 2003)