Defendant Jarrod Cooney (Cooney), a shift manager at a 7-Eleven in Bellmawr, left the store mid-shift in his own car to pick up a pizza for himself and a coworker. On his way back to the store, he caused a car accident, injuring Plaintiff Alex Seccia. 7-Eleven’s posted rules prohibited employees from leaving the store during their shift and paid them for “a straight [eight] hours.” Employees, including Cooney, remained clocked in for eight hours, including their thirty-minute break, and ate their lunch in the store. Cooney claimed he had his boss’ permission; the boss denied it. Seccia sued Cooney and 7-Eleven, alleging Cooney was in the scope of his employment for which 7-Eleven was vicariously liable. The issue in Seccia v. Cooney, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1663 (App. Div. July 22, 2026) was whether Cooney’s pizza run was within the scope of his employment with 7-Eleven.
After discovery, Seccia settled with Cooney, but continued to pursue his claim against 7-Eleven. However, 7-Eleven moved for summary judgment, arguing that by leaving the store in direct violation of store rules, he was not acting within the scope of his employment and for which 7-Eleven could not be vicariously liable. The trial court agreed, and dismissed Seccia’s complaint against 7-Eleven. Seccia appealed.
Vicarious liability, also known as the doctrine of respondeat superior, holds an employer liable for its employee’s negligence based on the idea that an employee is the agent of and acts on behalf of their employer. It follows that an employer can be found liable for the negligence of its employee if, at the time of the accident, the employee was acting within the scope of their employment. The key focus of the respondeat superior standard is on the relationship between the employee’s job responsibilities and the alleged negligent conduct. Thus, an employer will not be liable for the employee’s conduct that occurs beyond the scope of the employment.
Under New Jersey law, an employee who is “going to” or “coming from” their job is not considered to be acting within the scope of their employment. However, in contrast, under the “dual purpose” rule, an employer can be liable where the employee’s personal affairs are also in furtherance of the employer’s business interests. The determining factor is whether the employer has control over the employee’s actions, meaning an employee’s travels to or from the workplace, regardless of whether their coming or going is in the beginning, middle, or end of the work day, the critical factor is whether the employer controls their travel. Such exceptions that indicate the type of control for which the courts will find an employer liable for its employee’s conduct is if the employee is running a special errand for the employer or when the employer requires the employee to use their own vehicle for such an errand.
On appeal, Seccia argued that the trial court misapplied the “going to” and “coming from” rule, for which Cooney was acting in the scope of his employment. Seccia argued that this only applied to employees commuting to and from the workplace both before and after the day’s work, but any mid-shift travel during the workday is distinct and for which the employer can be responsible. Further, because the summary judgment standard assumes issues of fact in the non-moving party’s favor, he had his boss’ permission to go get pizza and, as a result, 7-Eleven must be bound to his negligent conduct. The Appellate Division disagreed. It found that Cooney’s actions, even though done mid-shift, were outside of the scope of his employment because driving to pick up a pizza was “different in kind” from his authorized role as a 7-Eleven manager. Nor did his actions serve a “dual purpose” of both his and 7-Eleven’s interests. Finally, nothing in Cooney’s leaving 7-Eleven to get a pizza land outside of the “going to” and “coming from” rule. Cooney’s boss, though he may have authorized the trip, did not send Cooney to get the pizza, nor did he require Cooney use his own vehicle, thereby lacking any control over Cooney’s excursion or make it a special errand or a task done for a palpable benefit of the employer but Cooney’s own benefit in order for 7-Eleven to be vicariously liable for Seccia’s injuries.
The Court’s holding emphasizes that the “going to” and “coming from” rule applies wholly independent of when the travel occurs during the workday, placing the focus on the interaction between the employer and its control of the employee’s conduct and whether the employer yields some tangible benefit from the employee’s travel.
