One of the biggest mistakes that I see corporate officers and managers make when testify at their deposition or in court is coming across as arrogant. Arrogance is a quality that is disliked by everyone, including other arrogant people. It irritates both judges and juries.  When you come across as you are better than others or like you know it all, it can easily translate into a loss and / or bigger award against the company just for that reason alone.

​Very few people actually have any idea that they come across as arrogant. You cannot and should not trust your own judgment regarding how others may perceive you. Therefore, you should encourage your friends or anyone else, who you can trust to be honest and direct with you, to tell you if they think you may come across as arrogant. In case your attorney didn't discuss this with you, you should specifically ask him whether he believes you may come across as arrogant. If you have this issue, the good news that you can work on it and it can be eliminated relatively easily - if not from your personality, at least from the way you appear when you testify.

Generally, under the going and coming rule, an employee going to or coming from work is considered outside of the scope of employment, so that the employer is not liable for any wrongful acts committed by that employee during that time. However, an exception to the going and coming rule occurs when an employee commits a negligent act while engaged in a "special errand" or a "business errand" for the benefit of his employer while commuting. (Ducey v Argo Sales Co. (1979). If the employee is not simply on his way from his home to his normal place of work or returning from said place to his home for his own purpose, but is coming from his home or returning to it on a special errand either as part of his regular duties or upon a specific, even one time request  of his employer, the employee is considered to be in the scope of his employment from the time he starts on the errand until he has returned or until he completely abandons it and resumes his personal affairs.

​Thus, when you, the employer, ask your employee to drive somewhere on their way home from the office or on their way to the office, and that employee, for instance, gets into a car accident which is found to be his fault, then your business may be liable for any injuries and damages caused by that employee. As the law provides, the liability can only be  imposed for incidents that occur before and not after the errand is completed. 

While it's clear that the risk of liability ends when the employee completes the task at the end of the work day and continues to travel home, it's not so clear when that risk ends, if at all, if the employee completes the task while on his way to work, and upon completion of the errand continues to travel to his normal worksite. On one hand, an argument can be made that the employer should not be liable for any incident after the errand is completed and before the employee arrives to his normal workplace because this would otherwise be a normal part of the "coming and going time". On the other hand, it can also be argued that the employee started his workday from the moment he started working on the errand and until the end of that workday. I anticipated that future cases will provide some clarity for this type of tricky situation.

​For now, if you want to avoid any risk of liability for any accidents caused by your employees on their way to or from work, simply avoid asking them to run any errands. This includes such simple things as picking up supplies, dropping off packages, etc.