In upholding the jury’s award, the Appellate Court noted that Roseville’s restriction of its employees’ use of its vehicles to solely business purposes was not reflected in its employee handbook, which merely stated unauthorized vehicle use was prohibited. In addition, there was sufficient evidence that Roseville failed to monitor or supervise the use of its vehicles for business purposes only, thereby suggesting a tacit permission for employees to use the vehicles for purposes other than business purposes. Accordingly, the Appellate Court found it was not improper for the jury to conclude that Roseville had given Lewis permission to use the vehicle.
How can other employers shield themselves from such liability? If possible, employers should require employees to use their own vehicle and pay them a car allowance for such use. If employees must use a company vehicle, in addition to having and enforcing a policy prohibiting personal use, employer should make it a condition of employment that employees provide proof of insurance coverage for the employee’s use of a company owned vehicle.
If you have a question about a company policy regarding vehicle use, please telephone a member of the firm.