## Facts

- A McDonald’s employee, Evans, participated in an after-hours “spring-blitz” playground cleanup at the San Ysidro restaurant from about 8:00 p.m. until roughly 1:00–2:00 a.m.
- The cleanup was performed at McDonald’s request and for McDonald’s benefit; Evans was not paid for the work and viewed such extra effort as relevant to advancement.
- After the cleanup, Evans and other employees went to a co-worker’s home (Duffer’s), where they discussed work matters and also socialized into the early morning.
- Around 6:30 a.m., while Evans drove from Duffer’s home toward his own home, his car collided with Martin K. O’Connor’s motorcycle.
- O’Connor suffered severe injuries, including permanent disability and amputation of his left leg below the knee.
- O’Connor sued Evans and McDonald’s for negligence, alleging McDonald’s was vicariously liable under respondeat superior because Evans was acting within the scope of employment under the special-errand exception to the going-and-coming rule.

## Issues

1. Whether Evans’s travel at the time of the collision was within the scope of employment under the special-errand exception to the going-and-coming rule.
2. Whether Evans’s stop at a co-worker’s home constituted a mere deviation from, or a complete departure from, any special errand for McDonald’s.
3. Whether the scope-of-employment question was sufficiently undisputed to be decided as a matter of law on summary judgment.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment entered for McDonald’s and remanded.
- The court held that triable issues of material fact existed on whether Evans had merely deviated from, rather than completely abandoned, a special errand undertaken for McDonald’s benefit.
- Because competing inferences could be drawn from the evidence regarding Evans’s purpose and the work-related character of the post-cleanup gathering, McDonald’s was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- Under respondeat superior, an employer may be liable for employee torts committed within the scope of employment.
- The going-and-coming rule generally bars employer liability for an employee’s commute-related negligence.
- The special-errand exception may apply when an employee performs or travels in connection with a task requested by, or benefiting, the employer, even if outside ordinary hours or unpaid.
- Whether an employee’s personal activity constitutes a mere deviation or a complete departure from the employer’s business is commonly a fact question; summary judgment is improper when reasonable factfinders could reach different conclusions from the record.
- On summary judgment, courts must draw reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party when assessing disputed scope-of-employment evidence.

## Conclusion

The court held that a jury could reasonably find Evans remained within the scope of employment under a special-errand theory despite the extended stop at a co-worker’s home, making summary judgment for McDonald’s improper.


O’Connor v. McDonald’s Rests. of Cal., Inc., 220 Cal. App. 3d 25 (Ct. App. 1990)