## Facts

- Multiple plaintiffs brought wrongful death, personal injury, and property damage actions arising from a multi-vehicle accident on August 6, 1965, on Route 4A in Enfield, New Hampshire.
- The allegedly negligent driver, Ralph F. Davis, Jr., was employed by R. G. Watkins & Son, Inc. as a truck driver on a road construction project.
- After a company truck broke down, Watkins directed Davis to obtain a replacement part located in Lawrence, Massachusetts and return it for use at the job site.
- Davis traveled in his own automobile and made personal stops during the trip; the accident occurred around 5:00 p.m. while he was driving toward his apartment in Lebanon, New Hampshire.
- Davis’s normal workday ran from 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and Watkins kept him on the payroll until 5:00 p.m. that day to compensate him for time and gasoline.
- For purposes of the transferred questions only, the parties agreed that Davis was acting within the scope of employment at the time of the accident, while Watkins reserved the right to contest scope of employment at trial.
- The trial court transferred two reserved questions to the New Hampshire Supreme Court on an agreed statement of facts, without ruling.

## Issues

1. Whether an employer may be held liable under respondeat superior for an employee’s negligent operation of the employee’s own automobile while on company business within the scope of employment.
2. Whether employer liability depends on proof that the employer controlled or had the right to control the manner and means (details) of the employee’s operation of the automobile, and if so, what constitutes such control.

## Decision

- The court answered that the employer may be vicariously liable for the employee’s negligent driving of the employee’s own vehicle if the employee was acting within the scope of employment.
- The court rejected prior New Hampshire cases to the extent they required the employer’s right to control the details of how the employee drove the automobile as a condition of a master–servant relationship in this context.
- The case returned to the trial court for further proceedings, with scope of employment remaining contestable at trial despite the limited stipulation for the transferred questions.

## Legal Principles

- Respondeat superior may apply when an employee, acting within the scope of employment, negligently operates a personally owned automobile on the employer’s business.
- A master–servant relationship for vicarious liability does not require the employer to have a right to control the technical details of driving (manner and means) when the employee is performing assigned work for the employer.
- The central inquiry is whether the employee was acting in furtherance of the employer’s business within the scope of employment, not whether the employer could direct how the employee handled the vehicle.

## Conclusion

The New Hampshire Supreme Court held that an employer can be liable for an employee’s negligent driving of the employee’s own car when the employee is acting within the scope of employment, and it repudiated any rule making vicarious liability turn on the employer’s right to control the details of vehicle operation.


Hunter v. R. G. Watkins & Son, Inc., 265 A.2d 15 (N.H. 1970)