Kashin v Kant
You be the Judge #3
Deborah Andriaccio
D’Youville College
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of LAW 303V
Judge Thomas Rebhan
June 6, 2014
Kashin V. Kent
457 F.3d 1033, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 20496
United States Court of Appeals for
The Ninth Circuit, 2006
Scope of employment refers to a person actively involved in an employment task at a particular time. It usually becomes an issue when an accident occurs, which is required to make a claim for work-related injury under state Worker's Compensation Acts. Also, in order to hold an employer liable for the wrongful acts of an employee, it may be necessary to show that the employee was engaged in duties in the scope of employment at the time of the wrongful conduct. The test is whether the actions of an employee further the business of the employer and are not personal business, thereby making an employer is liable for damages. For example, if an employee is en route to deliver goods to a customer and makes a detour to do a personal errand, any accident occurring while on the personal errand are not in the scope of employment and the employer is not liable (definitions.uslegal.com, 2014). In the case of Kashin V. Kent, Douglas Kent was the Consul General of the United States in Vladivostok, Russia. While driving home from the gym one evening, Kent was involved in an accident that left Aleksandr Kashin severely injured. Kashin sued the United States government, claiming that Kent was within the scope of employment at the time of the accident. Soon after arriving in Russia, Kent was given a car and personal driver that he could use for any purpose, whether work or personal. However, later on the Department of State wanted to reduce its expenses and removed the personal driver because of his high overtime expenses due to Kent’s late work hours. Kent would drive his own car and the Government would
Deborah Andriaccio
D’Youville College
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of LAW 303V
Judge Thomas Rebhan
June 6, 2014
Kashin V. Kent
457 F.3d 1033, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 20496
United States Court of Appeals for
The Ninth Circuit, 2006
Scope of employment refers to a person actively involved in an employment task at a particular time. It usually becomes an issue when an accident occurs, which is required to make a claim for work-related injury under state Worker's Compensation Acts. Also, in order to hold an employer liable for the wrongful acts of an employee, it may be necessary to show that the employee was engaged in duties in the scope of employment at the time of the wrongful conduct. The test is whether the actions of an employee further the business of the employer and are not personal business, thereby making an employer is liable for damages. For example, if an employee is en route to deliver goods to a customer and makes a detour to do a personal errand, any accident occurring while on the personal errand are not in the scope of employment and the employer is not liable (definitions.uslegal.com, 2014). In the case of Kashin V. Kent, Douglas Kent was the Consul General of the United States in Vladivostok, Russia. While driving home from the gym one evening, Kent was involved in an accident that left Aleksandr Kashin severely injured. Kashin sued the United States government, claiming that Kent was within the scope of employment at the time of the accident. Soon after arriving in Russia, Kent was given a car and personal driver that he could use for any purpose, whether work or personal. However, later on the Department of State wanted to reduce its expenses and removed the personal driver because of his high overtime expenses due to Kent’s late work hours. Kent would drive his own car and the Government would