HOUSTON - A Texas appeals court has upheld the decision of a trial court in a lawsuit involving a city of Pasadena employee.
The 14th Court of Appeals issued it opinion in the matter between Martin Molina and the city, which was on appeal from the 129th district court.
The issue in question was whether or not the city was liable for a pedestrian collision involving one of their engineering inspectors, Victor Alfonso Rendon.
Molina filed a lawsuit against the city of Pasadena after he was hit while crossing in a pedestrian crosswalk by Rendon, who was driving a city vehicle at the time.
However, the city argued that Rendon was on his lunch break and therefore not on duty at the time of the incident. They therefore believed they were not liable for the collision.
“The trial court granted the plea without specifying which ground had merit. On appeal, appellant challenges both possible grounds.Because Rendon was not acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident, we affirm,” Justice John Donovan wrote in the court opinion.
According to the court decision, Rendon was finishing his lunch break and heading to his next job site at the time of the collision.
“Rendon intended on turning right onto Southmore Avenue and proceed toward the Pansy Water Tank. Before turning, Rendon looked both ways and saw appellant on the sidewalk approximately twenty feet away and heading west toward the intersection. Rendon believed he had time to turn, confirmed there was no on-coming traffic from his left, and took his foot off the brake. Rendon did not accelerate but the truck traveled approximately one foot before Rendon saw appellant in front of the vehicle. Rendon immediately applied the brake, stopping the vehicle,” the decision stated.
He stopped the vehicle and checked on Molina, who said he was fine and wanted to go home. Rendon called to report the incident to the city’s safety supervisor.
In the lawsuit, Molina argued that the city was liable because Rendon was on his way to the next jobsite he was scheduled to inspect that day.
“When the vehicle involved in an accident was owned by the defendant and the driver was an employee of the defendant, however, a presumption arises that the driver was acting within the scope of his employment when the accident occurred,” the Justices noted in the decision.
The Justices cited two Texas Supreme Court cases where it was ruled that an employee who is returning from an errand is not considered on duty.
“The undisputed evidence is that Rendon was in the process of returning to work. The fact that he was going to another inspection spite does not preclude application of the cases, some of which are cited herein, holding that an employee returning to work from a personal errand is not acting within the course and scope of his employment. An accident that occurs while an employee is ‘returning to the zone of his employment’ does not fix liability against the employer,” Justice Donovan wrote.
“We find appellant’s reliance upon Rendon’s testimony that he believed he was ‘on duty’ at the time of the accident to be misplaced. The law is well-settled that such testimony is not probative evidence that an employee was acting within the course and scope of his employment.”
The opinion was filed on Aug 21.