“In the event that an employee is engaged in some private matter of his own or outside the legitimate scope of his employment the employer is no longer responsible for the negligence of the employee.” —Beasley, Judge 

Facts: Brigitte Hall was a part-time cashier at a grocery store owned and operated by Food Lion, LLC. When Hall’s shift was over, she “clocked out” of work and headed toward the bathroom before leaving the premises. Hall entered the bathroom at a brisk pace and, upon opening the door, discovered Diamond Matthews on the floor. Employees at Food Lion called 911. Rescue assistants accompanied Matthews to the hospital. Matthews sued Hall and Food Lion to recover damages for negligence and respondeat superior. Food Lion filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that Hall was not acting within the scope of her employment at the time of the incident. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Food Lion. Matthews appealed. 

Issue: Was Hall acting within the scope of her employment at the time of the accident? 

Language of the Court: The evidence establishes that Food Lion has no control over the actions of its employees once they have “clocked out” of work. Hall was not acting within the scope of her employment at the time of the incident and Hall had completely departed from the course of business of her employer. Therefore, Hall was acting outside the scope of her employment at the time she entered the bathroom and Food Lion is not liable under the theory of respondeat superior.

Decision: The court of appeals held that Hall was not acting within the scope of her employment at the time of the accident. The court of appeals affirmed the trial courts’ grant of summary judgment for Food Lion. 

Ethics: Questions Should Food Lion have denied liability in this case? Was this a close case to decide? Did any party act unethically in this case?