Apply the scope of employment checklist of factors below in to determine whether the employees in the following situations were acting within the scope of their employment at the time of the accident. Identify further fact investigation you may need. In each instance, the plaintiff is suing the employer on a respondent superior theory. None of the plaintiffs work for the employer.

a. While making a delivery in a company truck, the employee travels five miles out of the way to visit his ailing mother. He stays for three hours. On his way back to the company plan to return the truck, he injures the plaintiff in a traffic accident. The plaintiff sues for negligence.

Scope of checklist of factors:

1. Authorization: Was the employee's conduct substantially within what the employer authorized the employee to do?

2. Purpose: Was the employee acting to pursue the business interests of the employer? If the employee also had personal objectives in what was done, can it nevertheless be said that the employee was acting primarily to pursue the business interests of the employer?

3. Normalcy: Was the employee's conduct common or usual in the job being performed?

4. Time: Was the employee's conduct undertaken substantially within the time of work for the employer?

5. Place: Was the employee's conduct undertaken substantially within the place or locale authorized by the employer for such conduct?

6. Foreseeability: Are there any additional facts (other than those listed in items 1-5 above) that would make the conduct of the employee foreseeable to the employer?

7. Special Obligation: Was the employer engaged in the kind of business on which the courts have historically placed a special obligation for the protection of its customers, for example- the operation of a common carrier or innkeeping?

8. Common Sense: As a matter of common sense, can we say that the employee's conduct was within the scope of employment?