Question 30 0.25 pts In the case of Pierson v. Helmerich & Payne (HW-01 case). Brent Pierson (the plaintiff) sued Helmerich & Payne (the defendant) for personal injury damages to himself and his wife on the theory that under the doctrine of respondeat superior, the defendant would be liable for injuries resulting from an automobile accident caused by defendant's employee, Luis Mooney, who was driving home from work with two co-workers as passengers. The trial judge granted summary judgment for the defendant. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision. Why? Because Pierson might have caused the accident instead of Mooney Because none of the exceptions to the going and coming rule were applicable and the rule exempts employers from liability when their employees are going to work or coming home from work Because of the required vehicle exception to the going and coming rule. Because Mooney was providing an incidental benefit to the defendant by driving his co-workers home. Because the going and coming rule makes employers liabile when their employees are going to work and coming home from work Previous Next 26 8 ty MacBook Pro 80 F3 000 090 DW so F7 F5 FO