How to analyze this scenario using the IRAC method?

Case #1 James Karagiorgis is a civilian employee of the United States Navy who is ordinarily assigned to the Nanal Sea System Command ("NAVSEA") in Washington, D.C. For a few weeks in 1996, Karagiorgis was temporarily assigned to perform an "engineering reliability backfit" on the USS Los Angeles, which was moored at the Pearl Harbor Naval Base in Hawaii. Because no government quarters were available on the base, Karagiorgis arranged commercial lodging through a government travel agent and procured a rental car for use while in Hawaii. The cost of both the car and hotel were reimbursed by the Navy. On January 24, 1996, James Karagiorgis finished his day's work on the USS Los Angeles, left the ship and began driving toward the exit of the base, which was some distance from the ship where he had been working. While still just inside the base, he rear-ended a car that was stopped in traffic, injuring its driver, Clamor. After first exhausting her no-fault benefits as required by Hawaii state law, Clamor filed a complaint against Karagiorgis in Hawaii state court. Question: Was the employee (Karagiorgis) acting within the scope of employment when he negligently injured the plaintiff (Clamor)? Explain. Case #2