## Facts

- Joma, Inc. operated an automobile service station and employed James DeMaio, who performed station duties and sometimes acted in a supervisory/managerial role.
- DeMaio received an unpaid, flexible half-hour lunch break and was free to spend it on or off the premises.
- It was a common practice for someone who could leave the station to pick up lunch for themselves and one or more coworkers; most nonsupervisory employees typically did not leave during business hours to avoid inconveniencing customers.
- Joma had no formal policy requiring lunch pickup, and DeMaio was not reimbursed for mileage or expenses.
- On January 23, 1985, during his lunch break, DeMaio rode his motorcycle to pick up sandwiches for himself and one or two coworkers and struck Carl L. Wilson, causing serious injuries.
- Wilson sued Joma under respondeat superior, alleging DeMaio was acting within the course and scope of employment at the time of the accident.
- The Delaware Superior Court granted summary judgment to Joma, concluding DeMaio was outside the scope of employment as a matter of law.
- Wilson appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether DeMaio was acting within the course and scope of employment when he traveled off premises during an unpaid lunch break to pick up food for himself and coworkers.
2. Whether the “dual purpose” rule could permit a finding that the trip appreciably served the employer’s interests, making summary judgment improper.

## Decision

- The Delaware Supreme Court reversed the grant of summary judgment for Joma.
- The court held that material factual disputes existed on whether DeMaio’s conduct was motivated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve Joma.
- The court remanded for further proceedings, leaving the scope-of-employment determination to the factfinder.

## Legal Principles

- Employee conduct is within the scope of employment only if it (a) is of the kind the employee is employed to perform, (b) occurs substantially within authorized time and space limits, and (c) is actuated at least in part by a purpose to serve the employer.
- Conduct is outside the scope when it is different in kind from that authorized, far beyond authorized time or space limits, or too little motivated by a purpose to serve the employer.
- Under the “dual purpose” rule, an employee’s act may fall within the scope of employment if the employer’s business motivates the employee to an appreciable extent, even if the act also serves the employee’s personal purpose.
- Being on an unpaid lunch break does not, by itself, preclude a finding that the employee acted within the scope of employment.
- When competing inferences exist regarding employer benefit and employee motivation, scope-of-employment is generally a jury question and not suitable for resolution on summary judgment.

## Conclusion

The court held that a reasonable jury could find that DeMaio’s lunch pickup served both personal and employer-related purposes, creating triable issues on scope of employment; accordingly, summary judgment for the employer was reversed and the case was remanded.


Wilson v. Joma, Inc., 537 A.2d 187 (Del. 1988)