Many businesses, large and small, hire employees whose responsibilities include driving in a company-owned vehicle, whether for deliveries, pick-ups, service calls, or any of a number of other functions. Any drive on the roads these days entails risks, but many business owners and managers likely assume that insurance will cover the financial effects in the unfortunate event of an injury. Few probably give much thought to the possibility that the business could be facing a lawsuit if an employee driver becomes involved in a road rage incident that is claimed to have injured another person.
A California county court issued a decision this year that denied summary judgment for a defendant business in a lawsuit arising out of two employees’ alleged conduct during an incident that is claimed to have left a pedestrian injured.[1] “Summary judgment” is a procedure that permits a party to a lawsuit to request that the court enter judgment in that party’s favor in advance of trial. To be successful on a motion for summary judgment, the party seeking it must show that the pertinent facts that support its claim or defense cannot reasonably be disputed and that under those factual circumstances, the law either compels liability (if argued by the party that sued on a claim) or the law provides no support for liability (if argued by the party defending the claim).
The two employees in the California case were alleged to have been on their way to a service call for a plumbing business when, as they drove by the pedestrian, he made a gesture that he described as conveying a message of “what’s up?” and consistent with a message that the driver should “slow down.” The employees initially continued along their route, according to the testimony summarized in the opinion, before the driver stopped and reversed back toward the pedestrian. The employees allegedly got out of the vehicle, confronted the man, and a physical confrontation ensued.
The business sought summary judgment, arguing that it could not be held liable for the alleged actions of the employees because their decision to confront the pedestrian was not activity within the scope of their employment. The court determined that under its interpretation of California law governing employers’ liability for employees’ conduct (California’s doctrine of “vicarious liability” in an employment context) and according to at least some of the participants’ descriptions of the encounter between the employees and the pedestrian, the confrontation arose out of “operation of the company vehicle during assigned travel.” According to prior California case law, as interpreted by the county court, “assault arising from a dispute over work-related driving may remain within the scope of employment, including when the employee becomes angry and personally escalates the dispute.”
The court also refused to dismiss claims against the employer for negligent hiring, supervision, training, and retention, all of which center on an employer’s action or inaction rather than on a claim of vicarious liability for employees’ actions. The employer requested summary judgment on those claims, relying, among other things, on evidence that the employees had received positive feedback and that there were no customer complaints or customer-related incident reports relating to them. The court determined that even if true, the evidence did not prove that the employer had not been negligent in its hiring, supervision, or retention of the employees.
Other courts have come to different conclusions based on similar facts. For example, a 2022 decision by a Minnesota district court granted summary judgment for a trucking company in a case involving injuries a man claimed as a result of an alleged scuffle between its truck driver and another driver at a fuel station.[2] The court determined that the evidence submitted on summary judgment did not show that the truck driver could have been expected to engage in assault or that the alleged actions were foreseeable in the trucking industry, as it interpreted Minnesota law to require.
However, the Minnesota court determined that the report of the plaintiff’s expert witness was insufficient to establish that road rage incidents between truck drivers was a recognized hazard in the industry because she was not shown to have “specialized knowledge or experience in the field of trucking and the behaviors of truck drivers.” Therefore, the decision does not rule out the possibility that a claim could survive in a future case in that jurisdiction if supported by a qualified expert witness.
Just because the California county court denied summary judgment to the plumbing business does not mean that the business might not succeed in persuading a jury at trial that the employees acted outside the scope of their employment. But it means that an early departure from the lawsuit has been denied, which usually means that more attorneys’ fees, resources and time must be devoted to court proceedings instead of to the normal press of business.
In a case in which an employee driver allegedly causes injury due to road rage, insurance coverage questions for both the employee and the employer may become complicated, as well. Coverage may turn on policy language that requires its own analysis, so that it may be possible for an employer to be held liable for a claim that is found to be within the scope of the employees’ driving activity even though the availability of vehicle insurance coverage may turn on the separate question whether the employee was “using” the motor vehicle in question at the time of the alleged injury. Some courts have held that a “use” requirement is not satisfied where a driver becomes involved in a conflict with another driver outside the vehicle.
Though neither an employer policy against road rage or violence nor specific training against aggressive driving may necessarily insulate an employer against all potential liability, common sense dictates that measures designed to convey the importance of safe driving on the job could help reduce the likelihood of a road rage incident in the first place, thereby rendering theoretical legal questions happily moot.
[1] Licea v. Flores, Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. 24CHCV00995 (July 31, 2026).
[2] Loe v. Landis, Hennepin County District Court, Court File No. 27-CV-21-12484 (July 1, 2022).
The comments on these pages are the general opinions of the author, do not constitute legal advice and do not create an attorney-client relationship.
