No Respondeat Superior.

An employee was employed by defendant as a directional driller. He had the option of using his personal vehicle or being assigned a company truck and chose the latter. According to defendant, at the time the truck was assigned, his supervisor told him he could use the company vehicle to get to work and back and to run personal errands en route. According to the employee, the supervisor told him he could run errands and take care of business as long as he was back in time for his next shift. Defendant had a written policy, which the employee reviewed, which stated that company vehicles were not to be used for personal business, but could be used to commute between home and work, “and may make a stop directly en route for personal reasons while traveling to and from work.” The employee spent about 50 percent of his time working in Bakersfield, and the other 50 percent in various parts of the state. At one point, he was assigned to work on a rig in Seal Beach for two weeks. After his first Seal Beach shift ended, he used the company pickup to drive back to Bakersfield to spend time with his family. On his way back down to his Seal Beach hotel room, as he began his ascent up the Grapevine, the employee was involved in an accident, and his pickup struck another vehicle, injuring six people. The six injured persons brought an action against defendant, and the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant employer, holding the employee was not acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident. The appellate court stated: “The employee was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident; as a result, the requirements for imposing respondeat superior liability cannot be established. Accordingly, we affirm.” (Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. Dept. of Transp. (Cal. App. Fifth Dist.; September 29, 2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 87, [162 Cal.Rptr.3d 752].