Utah Supreme Court
When can employers be held liable for police officers' commuting accidents? Ahlstrom v. Salt Lake City Corp Explained
Summary
A Salt Lake City police officer was involved in an accident while driving a marked patrol car home to Tooele County after a Field Training Officer meeting on an off-duty day. The district court granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, holding the City vicariously liable for the officer’s negligence.
Analysis
The Utah Supreme Court’s decision in Ahlstrom v. Salt Lake City Corp clarifies when municipalities can be held vicariously liable for accidents involving off-duty police officers driving city vehicles during their commute.
Background and Facts
Officer Michelle Ross was driving a marked patrol car home to Tooele County after attending a Field Training Officer meeting on her off-duty day. Ross participated in the city’s take-home vehicle program, which allowed officers to pay a fee to commute in patrol cars. The program required officers to maintain certain equipment, wear appropriate attire, monitor the radio, and be ready to respond to emergencies. While commuting, Ross was involved in an accident that injured the plaintiffs. The district court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, finding the city vicariously liable.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether Ross was acting within the course and scope of her employment during her commute, making the city liable under respondeat superior. The court examined the application of the coming and going rule, which generally bars employer liability for commuting accidents, and potential exceptions including the dual purpose exception and special errand exception.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court reversed, holding that the coming and going rule applied to bar vicarious liability. The court emphasized that employers cannot be held liable for commuting accidents unless unique circumstances tip the balance from a personal trip to one that primarily benefits the employer. Surveying decisions from other jurisdictions, the court found that mere benefit to the employer or some control over vehicle use is insufficient. The court applied a test asking whether the trip was one the employer would have required another employee to make if the original employee had not gone.
Practice Implications
This decision provides important guidance for municipalities defending against vicarious liability claims involving police take-home vehicle programs. The ruling establishes that general benefits from officer accessibility and basic program requirements do not overcome the coming and going rule. Practitioners should focus on whether the employee’s trip served a purpose that would have required the employer to send someone else on the same route.
Case Details
Case Name
Ahlstrom v. Salt Lake City Corp
Citation
2003 UT 4
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20010830
Date Decided
February 28, 2003
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
An employer cannot be held vicariously liable for an employee’s commuting accident under the coming and going rule unless unique circumstances tip the balance from a personal trip to one that primarily benefits the employer.
Standard of Review
Correctness for summary judgment determinations where facts are undisputed
Practice Tip
When challenging vicarious liability for employee commuting accidents, focus on whether the trip would have required the employer to send another employee over the same route if the original trip had not been made.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.