Article by Patrick J. Graham, Esq.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently had occasion to broadly construe Pennsylvania’s vicarious liability precedent. In Nedelton v. Keebler, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113564 (E.D. Pa. June 30, 2023), Plaintiff, Michael Nedelton, was struck by Defendant Christopher Keebler’s truck as Keebler was driving through an intersection near Logan Circle in Philadelphia. Keebler was in Philadelphia on the date of the incident because he was working for his employer, Defendant A&J Builders at a job site on the 13^th floor of 1818 Market Street. However, at the time of the incident, Keebler was leaving the job site to return home.

Seeking to avoid liability for the actions of its employee, A&J Builders filed a Motion for Summary Judgment seeking the dismissal of all claims against it with prejudice. The basis for the Motion was that A&J Builders was not vicariously liable to Plaintiff for Keebler’s actions because Keebler was not within the scope of his employment at the time of the incident. Plaintiff opposed the Motion arguing that a genuine issue of fact existed as to whether Keebler was within the scope of his employment and therefore, the Motion should be denied so that a jury may assess the scope of employment issue.

On June 30, 2023, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied defendant A&J Builders’ Motion for Summary Judgment finding that a genuine issue of material fact did exist as to whether Keebler was within the scope of his employment at the time of the subject incident. Specifically, the Court found that:

An employer is a “master,” or principal, who employs an agent, (i.e., his employee, or “servant,”) to render services on the employer’s behalf, and where the employer has the right to control the physical conduct of the employee in the employment of services on behalf of the employer, a negligent act within the scope of the employment will give rise to vicarious liability.

Nedelton, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113564, at *5 (citing Shuman Estate v. Weber, 419 A.2d 169, 172 (Pa. Super. 1980)).

In citing this precedent, the Court also adhered to the long-standing principle that the determination as to whether a particular act of an employee is considered within the scope of his employment is generally a question reserved for the jury. This general principle does give way to an exception where no disputes exist as to material issues of fact and inferences drawn therefrom. See Shuman, 419 A.2d at 173.

Here, A&J Builders argued that since Keebler left the job site five minutes before the incident took place and was on his way home at the time of the incident, he could not possibly be within the scope of his employment. This position was well supported by applicable precedent finding that an employee is generally not considered to be acting within the scope of his or her employment while driving to and from a place of employment.

However, Plaintiff countered and the Court agreed that Keebler would not have been in Philadelphia but for (1) a request from his employer to work at a “rush job;” (2) to which he was required to bring his own tools; (3) to which no public transportation existed or could have practically transported him to the job site and; (4) from which Keebler proceeded directly home at the conclusion of his work at this site.

Relying on the Restatement (Second) of Agency § 228 as well as two decisions dating back to the 1940s, the Court found that sufficient evidence existed from which a jury could conclude that Keebler’s travel home from the job site was a “necessary and important” part of his employment with A&J Builders, and that the accident therefore could have occurred within the scope of Mr. Keebler’s employment. See U.S. v. New Jersey Mfrs. Co., 583 F. Supp. 579, 581 (E.D. Pa. 1984). In so finding, the Court denied A&J Builders’ Motion for Summary Judgment in what appears to be a decision backed by a broad interpretation of facts that would permit a jury to resolve the scope of employment issue.