Engler v. Gulf Interstate Engineering, Inc.
258 P.3d 304
Ariz. Ct. App.2011Background
- Engler sues Gulf Interstate Engineering and Gray for injuries from a motorcycle collision; Engler asserts Gray was acting within Gulf's course and scope, making Gulf vicariously liable under respondeat superior.
- Gray is a Gulf employee, stationed in Houston, working on a Mexico project, with hotels in Yuma and daily commutes to Mexico.
- Gray’s work day begins in the morning; because of cross-border delays, Gulf treated the return to the hotel as the end of Gray’s work day rather than the last task at the site.
- After work, Gray and a colleague dined together in Yuma; the accident occurred while returning to the hotel from dinner.
- Gulf moved for summary judgment arguing Gray was not in the course and scope of employment at the time of the accident; Engler cross-moved seeking judgment that Gray was within scope.
- McCloud II later held that an employee on out-of-town travel status is within the course and scope while traveling to meals, prompting Engler’s arguments for reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McCloud II controls the scope question | Engler argues McCloud II broadens scope to include meals during travel. | Gulf contends McCloud II is distinguishable and not controlling here. | McCloud II rejected; apply narrower scope test. |
| Whether workers' compensation principles apply to tort vicarious liability | Engler seeks to borrow workers' comp approach to expand scope. | Gulf urges keeping workers' comp standards out of tort analysis. | Not controlling; apply traditional tort scope test |
Key Cases Cited
- Robarge v. Bechtel Power Corp., 131 Ariz. 280, 640 P.2d 211 (App. 1982) (employer control and time/place limits determine scope of employment)
- McCloud II, 224 Ariz. 121, 228 P.3d 113 (App. 2010) (out-of-town travel on meals can be within scope under workers' comp-like logic but not for torts)
- McCloud I, 217 Ariz. 82, 170 P.3d 691 (App. 2007) (initially recognized potential scope question for off-duty officer)
- Carnes v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 227 Ariz. 32, 251 P.3d 411 (App. 2011) (going-and-coming rule; employer not liable when employee returns home after day; exceptions are narrow)
- Anderson v. Gobea, 18 Ariz. App. 277, 501 P.2d 453 (App. 1972) (dual-purpose exception for employer liability when carrying employer property in a trip)
- Davis v. Vumore Cable Co., 14 Ariz. App. 411, 484 P.2d 23 (App. 1971) (frolic vs. detour on out-of-town assignments affects scope)