Auto negligence; Respondeat superior; Rogers v JB Hunt Transp, Inc; Bryant v Brannen; Distinguishing Byzewski v Aerotek, Inc (Unpub); Dual-purpose rule; Kester v Mattis, Inc; Motion to compel complete discovery responses; Augustine v Allstate Ins Co; MCR 2.302(B)(1)

The court held that defendant-Kamax was properly granted summary disposition of plaintiffs’ respondeat superior claim in this auto negligence case. Further, the trial court did not err in denying in part their motion to compel insofar as they sought to have Kamax produce its employee’s (defendant-Wright) unredacted e-mails and text messages. The case arose after Wright struck plaintiff-Diane Henderson as she was crossing an intersection in the crosswalk. “Wright was working remotely from his home office” that day. He had taken a short lunch break and “drove to pick up his dry cleaning.” He testified that this trip “was ‘not work[-]related,’ but he took his work phone with him because it was his habit. [He] did not make any stops on the way” before the accident. The record showed that he “did not send or receive any e-mails between when he stopped working for lunch and when the accident occurred. [He] also did not make or receive any phone calls during this time, other than to call 911 and call his wife. [His] trip to the dry cleaners was ‘intended solely to further the employee’s individual interests[.]’” Thus, the evidence did not support that the trip “was accomplished ‘in furtherance, or the interest, of the employer’s business.’” Plaintiffs did not offer “any evidence establishing a genuine issue of material fact regarding the scope of Wright’s employment at the time of the accident.” The unpublished decision they relied on, Byzewski, was distinguishable. And regardless of whether some of the clothing was “work attire, there was no evidence presented that Kamax ordered Wright to pick up this clothing, or have it dry cleaned. The evidence also established the only meeting” he had scheduled that day “took place remotely in the morning before [he] picked up his dry cleaning.” The court held that Kamax was “not liable under the dual-purpose rule because the accident did not occur while Wright was ‘going to or coming from work,’ and did not involve ‘a service of benefit to the employer.’” His going to pick “up his dry cleaning was for a private purpose and outside the scope of his employment. Because Wright was ‘acting to accomplish some purpose of his own,’ this issue was properly ‘decided as a matter of law.’” As to plaintiffs’ request to compel, the “mere conjecture Wright was distracted while driving because of a crisis at work is insufficient to allow discovery of the unredacted e-mails.” Affirmed.