| Venue: |
UT Supreme Court
|
|
| Facts: |
Swenson is a guard at Burns's plant. Shifts are tight, so Swenson
goes across the street to a nearby diner for food (there are
no meal breaks, but you can go for 15 minutes). On the way
back, Swenson smashes into Christiansen. |
|
| Posture: |
Trial court grants Burns's motion for summary judgment, on the
grounds that Swenson wasn't acting within the scope of
employment. The court of appeals affirmed. Appeal. |
|
| Issue: |
Was it appropriate to decide the question of whether or not
Swenson was acting within the scope of employment as a
matter of law? |
|
| Holding: |
No. Reversed and remanded. |
|
| Rule: |
In Birkner, a three-prong test was specified:
- Was the employee's conduct of the general kind the
employee was hired to perform?
- Was the employee's conduct substantially within the
hours and boundaries of the employment?
- Was the employee's conduct motivated, at least in
part, by service to the employer's interest?
|
|
| Reasoning: |
Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue
as to material fact. Reasonable people could have disagreed
about each of the three criteria from Birkner. |
|
| Dicta: |
|
|