Takeaway
In short, this case holds that a short, paid off-premises meal trip can remain within the scope of employment when disputed facts suggest it was known to the employer, closely tied to the work schedule, and partly served the employer's interests.
Burns International Security Services employed Gloria Swenson as a security guard at Gate 4 of the Geneva Steel Plant. Guards worked continuous eight-hour shifts without scheduled breaks, but Burns permitted ten-to-fifteen-minute paid, unscheduled breaks for meals and restroom use. Guards generally were expected to eat at their posts. The Frontier Cafe, directly across the street and roughly 150 to 250 yards from Gate 4, was the only nearby restaurant and was one of the few practical food sources available within such a short break.
During a lull in traffic, Swenson telephoned the cafe, ordered soup, and drove there in her uniform intending to pick it up and promptly return to Gate 4 to eat. On the return trip, at an intersection just outside Geneva property, her car collided with plaintiffs Christensen and Fausett's motorcycle. The plaintiffs sued Swenson for negligence and Burns under respondeat superior.
The trial court granted summary judgment to Burns, concluding that Swenson was outside the scope of employment. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed because the accident occurred off Geneva's premises. The Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari, reversed, and remanded because factual disputes could permit reasonable jurors to reach different conclusions on each part of Utah's scope-of-employment test.
Issue #1
Whether Swenson's trip to obtain soup could be found to be conduct of the general kind Burns hired her to perform, rather than a wholly personal undertaking.
Holding
Yes. Reasonable minds could differ, so this element of the scope-of-employment inquiry could not be resolved for Burns on summary judgment.
Reasoning
Under Utah's Birkner test, the employee must be engaged in the employer's business or assigned duties rather than wholly pursuing a personal endeavor. The question ordinarily belongs to the jury when the evidence permits competing reasonable inferences.
There was a factual dispute about whether Swenson's visible presence in uniform while traveling near the Geneva plant furthered Burns's security function. Swenson asserted that she was hired to “see and be seen” on and around the plant; Burns disputed that this was part of her job, and another guard regarded trips to the cafe as entirely personal.
There was also evidence from which a jury could infer that Burns contemplated or tacitly approved trips to the Frontier Cafe. Burns required continuous shifts, allowed short paid breaks, knew guards sometimes went to the cafe, never disciplined them for doing so, and apparently had the cafe's menu posted at Gate 4. Those facts could support a finding that obtaining food from the nearby cafe was not wholly personal.
Issue #2
Whether Swenson's off-premises trip to and from the Frontier Cafe occurred substantially within the ordinary spatial boundaries of her employment.
Holding
Yes, a jury could so find. The fact that the collision occurred outside Geneva property did not conclusively place Swenson outside the scope of employment.
Reasoning
The court rejected the court of appeals' effectively bright-line premises rule. Birkner requires that conduct occur substantially within the ordinary spatial boundaries of employment; it does not demand that every relevant act occur physically on the employer's land.
Swenson was still within her work hours, had left during a permitted short break, and was traveling to the only nearby restaurant from which Gate 4 guards could realistically obtain food within that break period. In this setting, a jury could regard the brief route across the street as substantially within the employment's ordinary spatial boundaries.
The record also conflicted over whether Burns prohibited guards from driving off site to the cafe. Although two managers believed the practice was forbidden, Burns identified no specific order imposing that prohibition. If the jury found no prohibition and credited evidence of Burns's awareness of the practice, it could find that the trip remained spatially connected to the job.
Issue #3
Whether Swenson's trip to obtain lunch could have been motivated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve Burns's interests.
Holding
Yes. The record allowed a reasonable jury to find a mutual employer-employee benefit and therefore presented a triable factual issue.
Reasoning
The third Birkner criterion asks whether the employee's conduct was motivated, at least partly, by serving the employer's interest. An employee need not act exclusively for the employer; a mixed personal and business purpose can suffice.
Burns managers acknowledged that breaks benefit both workers and employers. Guards need food and restroom opportunities, while the employer benefits from productive and satisfied employees. A jury could conclude that Swenson's brief meal trip fit that mutual-benefit rationale.
The structure of the job also supported a possible employer-serving purpose. Because Burns expected guards to work continuous shifts and allowed only short breaks, speed mattered. Swenson ordered ahead, drove to the nearby cafe, and intended to return immediately to her post, allowing an inference that she was trying to minimize time away from Gate 4 for Burns's benefit.