Ernesto Lopez, an employee of Visser Ranch, Inc., maintained the equipment at Visser’s farms, ranches, and dairies on call, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. Visser provided Lopez with a pick-up truck that he was expected to use at all times so he could respond quickly to work-related calls. Lopez’s son, Ray Moreno, worked for Cream of the Crop Ag Service, Inc. One night, while driving Moreno to work after a family gathering, Lopez lost control of the truck, which rolled over, seriously injuring his son. The truck was insured under a policy bought by Visser. To recover under the policy, Moreno filed a suit in a California state court against Visser, alleging that Lopez was acting in the scope of employment  at the time of the accident and claiming that Visser was liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Visser argued that Lopez was engaged in “purely personal business” at the time of the accident. [Moreno v. Visser Ranch, Inc., 30 Cal.App.5th 568, 241 Cal.Rptr.3d 678 (2018)] (See Liability for Torts and Crimes.) 

(a) Use the IDDR approach to evaluate the ethics of Visser’s  opposition to Moreno’s claim. 

(b) In most cases involving an employee’s use of a companyowned vehicle, the employee is not required to use the vehicle all of the time. Does this difference affect Moreno’s claim for liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior? Explain.