Utah Court of Appeals
Can summary judgment resolve scope of employment questions? Newman v. White Water Whirlpool Explained
Summary
Newman sued White Water Whirlpool for injuries sustained in an automobile accident with employee Bradley Sundquist, who was traveling to the company warehouse with tools and materials from the previous day’s work. The trial court granted summary judgment for White Water, finding Sundquist was outside the scope of employment under the coming and going rule.
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals addressed a fundamental question about when courts can resolve scope of employment issues as a matter of law in Newman v. White Water Whirlpool. This decision provides important guidance for practitioners handling vicarious liability cases involving employee conduct.
Background and Facts
Kenneth Newman was injured in an automobile accident with Bradley Sundquist, an employee of White Water Whirlpool. At the time of the accident, Sundquist was traveling to White Water’s Utah County warehouse with installation tools and materials from the previous day’s work. White Water knew that Sundquist regularly spent nights at his Salt Lake County home before returning to the warehouse. Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on whether Sundquist was acting within the scope of his employment.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether Sundquist’s conduct fell within the coming and going rule, which generally excludes employees traveling to and from work from the scope of employment. The court applied Utah’s three-part Birkner test: (1) whether the conduct was of the general kind the employee was employed to perform; (2) whether it occurred within work hours and ordinary spatial boundaries; and (3) whether it was motivated by serving the employer’s interest.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The majority reversed the summary judgment, emphasizing that scope of employment questions are “inherently fact bound.” The court found that reasonable minds could differ on whether Sundquist was merely commuting or performing employment duties when returning company materials to the warehouse. The dissent argued that the parties had agreed no factual disputes existed and that the invited error doctrine should prevent Newman from challenging the procedural approach he had requested.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that scope of employment determinations typically require jury resolution unless the employee’s activity is “so clearly within or outside the scope of employment that reasonable minds cannot differ.” Practitioners should be cautious about stipulating to summary judgment procedures on disputed legal standards, as the invited error doctrine may preclude later challenges to the court’s approach.
Case Details
Case Name
Newman v. White Water Whirlpool
Citation
2007 UT App 303
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20061001-CA
Date Decided
September 20, 2007
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
Whether an employee was acting within the course and scope of employment when returning to work with company materials presents a genuine issue of material fact that precludes summary judgment.
Standard of Review
Correctness for grants of summary judgment
Practice Tip
When challenging summary judgment on scope of employment issues, emphasize specific factual disputes regarding the employee’s duties, timing, location, and employer benefit to demonstrate genuine issues of material fact.
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.