Joseph A. Gerdon v. Joshua R. Rydalch, 280 P.3d 740

Gerdon and Rydalch, employees of Con Paulos Chevrolet, were transporting a vehicle for their employer when an accident occurred.
The trip involved retrieving a GMC Acadia from Washington and returning it to Idaho; tickets were purchased for both men and reimbursed by Con Paulos.
Gerdon and Rydalch received workers’ compensation benefits for injuries from the accident.
Gerdon sued Rydalch for negligent driving; district court granted summary judgment, applying Idaho’s exclusive remedy rule to bar the claim against a co-employee.
Gerdon challenged whether Rydalch was acting within the course and scope of employment and sought to strike portions of his affidavit.
On appeal, the court upheld summary judgment, affirmed striking part of Gerdon’s affidavit, and awarded attorney’s fees to Rydalch.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the district court err in granting summary judgment by finding Rydalch acted within scope of employment?	Gerdon contends material facts show Rydalch deviated for personal reasons.	Rydalch argues employment relationship and travel benefit to the employer support course-and-scope.	No error; Rydalch acted within course and scope.
Did the district court abuse its discretion by striking part of Gerdon’s affidavit?	Gerdon argues the affidavit was consistent with prior testimony.	District court properly struck conclusory, untethered paragraph 7.	No abuse; paragraph 7 properly struck.
Is Rydalch entitled to attorney’s fees on appeal?	Gerdon’s position justifies fee denial.	Fees warranted due to frivolous appeal.	Yes; attorney’s fees awarded to Rydalch.

Wilder v. Redd, 111 Idaho 141 (1986) (co-employee immunity extends to employees and agents)
I.C. § 72-209, — (—) (employer immunity extends to employees and agents unless willful conduct)
Baker v. Sullivan, 132 Idaho 746 (1999) (exclusive remedy rule; tort claim barred when workers’ comp available)
Hansen v. Estate of Harvey, 119 Idaho 333 (1991) (injury during course of employment subject to workers’ comp)
Andrews v. Les Bois Masonry, 127 Idaho 65 (1995) (traveling employee doctrine; continuous course of employment during travel)
Kirkpatrick v. Transtector Sys., 114 Idaho 559 (1988) (distinct departure for personal business can remove course-of-employment status)
Mortimer v. Riviera Apartments, 122 Idaho 839 (1992) (partly personal work can still be within course of employment)
Germ State Ins. Co. v. Hutchison, 145 Idaho 10 (2007) (admissibility of affidavits; threshold test for summary judgment)
J-U-B Eng’rs, Inc. v. Sec. Ins., Co. of Hartford, 146 Idaho 311 (2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard for admissibility of testimony in summary judgment)
Gem State Ins. Co. v. Hutchison, 145 Idaho 10 (2007) (threshold admissibility of affidavit evidence in summary judgment)