David Carter and Donna Carter, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs-Respondents v. Alice F. Reynolds, Defendant,stevens…

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed the Appellate Division's partial summary judgment, holding that the accounting firm is liable under respondeat superior because its employee was required to use her personal vehicle for work and was returning from a client when the accident occurred, thereby falling within the required‑vehicle exception to the going‑and‑coming rule. The Court rejected the firm's argument that control was unnecessary and declined to adopt California's broader enterprise liability theory. Justice LaVECCHIA filed a concurring opinion noting the narrow scope of the holding. Justice LaVECCHIA, dissenting, would have held that the required‑vehicle exception should not be applied so broadly.