Quantcast

LEGAL NEWSLINE

Saturday, June 15, 2024

Employer not liable for wreck caused by supposedly sleep-deprived security guard

State Court
Sleep

SAN FRANCISCO (Legal Newsline) - A security company isn’t liable for an accident that occurred when one of its employees fell asleep at the wheel driving home from work, a California appeals court ruled, rejecting arguments for a “special exception” to the general rule protecting employers against accidents caused by employees commuting to work.

Lucy Feltham and her husband, Mathieu Leonelli, sued Universal Protection Service after a security guard named Clanisha Villegas crossed into incoming traffic and hit and seriously injured Feltham, who was driving a motorcycle. The plaintiffs claimed Universal was negligent for allowing Villegas to work nights and extra shifts when she had recently given birth and was presumably tired from tending to her baby during daylight hours. 

A trial court dismissed the case, citing the “going and coming” rule, which protects employers against liability for torts committed by employees while they are commuting to and from work. 

The plaintiffs appealed, saying the judge should have applied a “special risk exception” to the rule. They also argued that Universal negligently hired Villegas because the company knew she had “daytime obligations that would keep her from sleeping.” Plaintiff expert Thomas Roth said Universal should have known a young mother with no daytime childcare would be exhausted. Randy Stedman, a human resources professional, said the company was negligent for failing to mitigate Villegas’s “sleep debt.” 

California’s First District Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal in a March 30 decision, however. The special risk exception only applies if there is a “causal nexus” between the accident and the employee’s job, the court ruled. California courts have applied the exception in cases of an employee getting drunk at a workplace party or inhaling dangerous fumes. But they have rejected it where a restaurant employee worked a 17.5-hour day, or in another case, worked 63 hours over three days. In this case, Villegas had 16 hours off before working a regular eight-hour shift, the appeals court said. 

“Neither the nature of Villegas’s job as a security guard, nor her schedule working the overnight shift, created “a ‘special risk’ that she would injure or kill someone by falling asleep while driving home,” the court concluded. 

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

More News