## Facts

- Keith L. Pyne was injured in an automobile collision involving William E. Witmer, an employee of D.R.W. Enterprises, Inc., which operated a gasoline station.
- Near the end of his workday, Witmer drove his own vehicle from the workplace area to Rockford to take an evening certification test related to his work as an automobile mechanic.
- D.R.W. did not pay Witmer wages, mileage, or travel expenses for the trip, but issued a check to cover the test fee.
- For purposes of the appeal, the parties agreed that Witmer was acting within the scope of employment while taking the test and during “travel incident thereto.”
- Approximately two and a half hours after the test ended, Witmer was involved in the collision with Pyne; evidence indicated Witmer was intoxicated at the time.
- The dispute centered on whether Witmer’s post-test activities and the time gap placed him outside the scope of employment at the moment of the collision.

## Issues

1. Whether a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether Witmer was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the collision, making summary judgment for D.R.W. improper.
2. Whether the circumstantial evidence permitted competing inferences about whether Witmer had deviated from, or returned to, employment-related travel when the collision occurred.

## Decision

- The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s reversal of summary judgment for D.R.W. and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that the record presented a triable question of fact on whether Witmer was within the scope of employment at the time of the collision.
- The court did not decide that Witmer was within the scope of employment as a matter of law; it held only that the issue could not be resolved on summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is appropriate only when the movant’s right to judgment is clear and free from doubt; courts must construe the record strictly against the movant and liberally in favor of the nonmovant, without resolving factual inferences.
- Under respondeat superior, employer liability turns on whether the employee was acting within the scope of employment at the time of the tort.
- Scope-of-employment questions, especially involving travel and alleged deviations for personal reasons, commonly depend on circumstantial evidence and are often for the trier of fact when reasonable inferences conflict.
- Evidence of a time gap, personal detours, or intoxication does not automatically place an employee outside the scope of employment as a matter of law when the record permits an inference that employment-related travel had resumed.

## Conclusion

Because the evidence allowed reasonable factfinders to disagree about whether Witmer remained on (or had returned to) employment-related travel incident to the test when the collision occurred, summary judgment for the employer was improper and the case was remanded for factfinding on scope of employment and related liability issues.


Pyne v. Witmer, 129 Ill. 2d 351, 543 N.E.2d 1304 (Ill. 1989)