Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

4
  • 7
    Some states use a test broader than the "close connection test" called the "frolic and detour" test. This asks if the employee was embarking on a frolic and not merely a detour from their job related activities. See law.cornell.edu/wex/frolic_and_detour citing O'Connor v. McDonald's Restaurants (Cal. App. 1990) law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/220/25.html
    – ohwilleke
    Commented Jun 13 at 21:13
  • 3
    OTOH, in practice, the company may prefer to pay up from their business insurance rather than risk long and expensive litigation over liability. But a lot will depend on circumstances. (The victim may also prefer to sue a rich company with liability rather than an individual who may have just been fired for gross negligence.)
    – Stuart F
    Commented Jun 14 at 9:26
  • Accepting this answer, since it's both good and the only one about the US, as was specified in the OP lol
    – Eugene
    Commented Jun 14 at 16:31
  • 3
    Re: "nobody told or expected you to drive (and indeed they'd probably prefer you weren't driving during meetings)": True, but if the accident was caused by driving during a meeting, then it was also caused by taking a meeting while driving. Judging from the OP, the company did expect the employee to take the meeting, despite knowing that the employee was driving.
    – ruakh
    Commented Jun 14 at 19:46