In Blackman v. Great American First Savings Bank (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 598 the plaintiff was injured in a car accident with an employee of the defendant Great American First Savings Bank (Great American). "At the time of the collision, employee was leaving the Great American parking lot and intending to drive to San Diego State University. Employee, a full-time Great American payroll accountant, was pursuing a business administration degree with emphasis in accounting under Great American's educational assistance program, which provided her with financial aid. In return, employee signed a contract which stated she agreed to remain an employee of Great American for five years, or reimburse a portion of the tuition-related funds provided by her employer." (Blackman, supra, 233 Cal.App.3d at p. 601.) Great American's educational assistance program "reimbursed employee for her tuition and book expenses for all relevant courses." (Ibid.) Plaintiff sought to hold Great American liable under respondeat superior. (Id. at p. 602.) "Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer is liable for those torts committed by employees acting within the scope of their employment." (Blackman, supra, 233 Cal.App.3d at p. 602.) "In analyzing cases of vicarious liability, the inquiry should be whether the risk may fairly be regarded as typical of, or broadly incidental to, the employer's business. . The risk arising out of the employment should not be so unusual or startling that it would seem unfair to include the loss resulting from it among other costs of the employer's business." (Id. at p. 604.) "The going-and-coming doctrine states an employee is outside the scope of his employment while engaged in the ordinary commute to and from his place of work. . This rule is based on the principle that the employment relationship is suspended from the time the employee leaves his place of work until he returns." (Id. at p. 602.) "Although an exception to the going-and-coming rule will be made when the trip involves an incidental benefit to the employer, the benefit must be sufficient enough to justify making the employer responsible for the risks inherent in the travel." (Id. at p. 604.) "The special errand doctrine is an exception to the going-and-coming rule which states an employee is within the scope of his employment while coming from home or returning to it while on a special errand either as part of his regular duties or at a specific order or request of his employer." (Blackman, supra, 233 Cal.App.3d at p. 602.) "Generally, whether an employee is within the scope of employment is a question of fact; however, when the facts of a case are undisputed and conflicting inferences may not be drawn from those facts, whether an employee is acting within the scope of employment is a question of law." (Blackman, supra, 233 Cal.App.3d at p. 602.) The Blackman court concluded that under these doctrines, Great American could not be held liable under respondeat superior: "Here, notwithstanding Great American's apparent view that they would receive a benefit from employee's college attendance, the reimbursement for college coursework can only be seen as broadly collateral to Great American's business, banking. Although Great American may have enhanced its banking business by facilitating its employees' educational advancement, the schoolwork has no direct impact on the day-to-day banking operations and the benefit is derived only indirectly over time." (Blackman, supra, 233 Cal.App.3d at p. 604.)