Was Company Liable for Worker’s Cocaine-Fueled Driving that Killed Motorist?

What Do You Think?

Can an employer become liable for an employee’s negligence when he’s driving to work? The family of a man who was killed by a waterproofing company employee’s erratic driving argued yes and said the worker’s compensation “special mission” exception should apply to render the employer liable in tort.

It hadn’t been that long since the employee left rehab for drug addiction, but since that time he had moved up the ranks of his father’s waterproofing company. According to his father, the employee, who was later sentenced to 10 years imprisonment for manslaughter, had become an assistant marketing manager and a trusted member of his department.

When the first major wave of the COVID-19 pandemic hit the shores of the U.S., the company decided it would tell its employees that they would be furloughed. The day that the announcement was reportedly going to be made, the employee was driving to work in his own car for which he received no travel subsidies. He didn’t know that the company would make the announcement that day. It was just a regular day, as far as he knew, and he was going in to set some appointments and complete some of his other normal job duties.

On the way, he drove erratically, at times over 100 miles per hour. He had spent the previous night partying, drinking alcohol, and using cocaine. He also took a Xanax that morning. He sideswiped a vehicle, causing it to roll over. Six days later, that driver died. His family sued, arguing the company was vicariously liable for its employee’s negligence.

Under Maryland tort law, the “coming and going rule” provides that an employer is not vicariously liable for the negligent conduct of an employee occurring during the employee's daily commute. 

The family of the deceased driver in this case, argued that the court should adopt the "special mission" exception to that rule — traditionally used in workers' compensation cases to demonstrate that a commuting employee is in the course and scope of employment. The family alleged that the employee was driving to the office for the sole, unusual purpose of announcing an indefinite furlough and thus was on a special mission.

Was the employee on a “special mission?”

A. No. He was simply commuting to work to perform his usual tasks.

B. Yes. The company planned to announce the furlough that same day.

If you selected A, you agreed with the court in Bos v. Bryan, No. 509, September Term, 2025 (Md. Ct. App. 07/07/26), which found the employee was merely commuting to work.

Even if the special mission exception from worker’s compensation applied to Maryland tort law, the court said, it wouldn’t apply in this case. The employee himself viewed that day as a "normal Friday" in which he would be completing ordinary tasks that were part of his typical duties. He had no knowledge that a furlough would be announced that day, nor was he instructed to deliver such news. Because he was not on a special mission, the coming and going rule applied to his commute and he was not in the course of employment when the accident occurred. Thus, the company was not vicariously liable for his actions.

The court affirmed the trial court’s ruling in the company’s favor.

Share This Article: