I have filed a complaint in a negligence case in the McDonough County Courthouse in Macomb, IL. Our client, the plaintiff, is a 65 year-old female named Hazel Anderson. I have named two defendants, Brad Garcia and Snowbird Ski Resort, Inc. While skiing on Snowbird Mountain in northwest Illinois, Mr. Garcia, an employee of Snowbird Ski Resort, collided with Ms. Anderson. Ms. Anderson claims Mr. Garcia was skiing carelessly (too fast and recklessly) and ran into her causing her to fall and injure herself. As a result of the fall, Ms. Anderson suffered a broken leg, a cut above her eye and several bruises. The facts set forth in the complaint are consistent with the attached factual summary. Snowbird Ski Resort, Inc. has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, claiming that there is no genuine issue of material fact in dispute and that they are not liable since Mr. Garcia was not within the scope of employment at the time of the injury. When the motion is heard, Judge Henderson will assume, for purposes of the motion, that all facts in the complaint are true. In 2010, the Illinois Supreme Court decided the seminal Illinois case on employers' vicarious liability in Rodman v. CSX Intermodal, Inc. I have included a copy of the Rodman opinion for your review. I need you to answer the questions following the fact summary below in order to determine if we have a valid case against the defendant and whether the motion will be granted. FACTUAL SUMMARY: Defendant Snowbird Ski Resort, Inc. operates a small ski resort in northwestern Illinois near the small town of Stockton. The resort's main building is a lodge, which includes a ski apparel and rental store, a hotel and a fine dining restaurant called the Chalet. The lodge is located at the bottom of Snowbird Mountain and has a ski lift to take skiers to the various ski runs on the top of the mountain. Halfway up the mountain is another restaurant called the Midway Caf. The Midway primarily serves sandwiches and hot drinks to the skiers without the skiers needing to go to the bottom of the mountain to get to the lodge. Snowbird employs Defendant Brad Garcia as a chef at the Chalet restaurant. He normally spendsmost of his time at work at the Chalet, but the ski resort regularly requires him to make trips to the Midway Cafe to monitor operations. On December 10, Brad was scheduled to begin work at the Chalet at 3:00 p.m. At about 10:00 a.m., the manager of both restaurants called Brad to ask him to inspect operations at the Midway Cafe before reporting to work at the Chalet. Later that morning, Brad decided to ski with a friend who also worked for the restaurants. During their first run, they stopped at the Midway Caf, where Brad performed his inspection. The two then skied three more runs. On the fifth and final run, Brad decided to go down a run on the far west side of the mountain. At the bottom of the run were several moguls (small hills or mounds), which Brad enjoyed skiing over. Brad planned to ski on the moguls and then ski back to the lodge to report to work. After finishing the moguls, Brad noticed it was close to 3:00 p.m. and that he needed to hurry to make it back to the lodge in time for work. Brad skied faster than usual on the narrow run between the far west run he just finished and the lodge. The path was not a well-traveled one, but Snowbird employees sometimes used it to travel from the western runs to the lodge. Most employees and customers used the dedicated ski run, or direct sidewalk to get from the Midway Caf to the Snowbird Lodge. During this run, Brad got a little out of control and collided with and seriously injured the plaintiff, Hazel Anderson, who was a novice skier. Ms. Anderson was practicing on the small practice hills just west of the Snowbird Lodge. The trail Brad was skiing on cut through a heavily wooded area and then opened up to the practice area before ending at the lodge. On the day of the accident, Brad burst through the opening in the trees and ran into/over Hazel Anderson who in the practice area (see diagram included below for details - the circled x on the map marks the spot of the accident). Hazel suffered a broken leg, a cut over her left eye and bruises all over her body. She wants to bring a suit to be reimbursed for her medical expenses, lost wages and to collect damages for her pain and suffering. I explained to Hazel that we could file a suit against Brad Garcia for negligence and against Snowbird as his employer. I told her that Snowbird Resort should be held vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, but that I would need to research the issue to be sure. Other facts which may be relevant: Brad is paid by salary and not on an hourly basis. He does not have a timecard and does not punch in or out. Snowbird simply expects him to work from 3:00 p.m. to close (which is usually around 11:00 p.m.). Also, the resort did not have any rules about employees using ski runs, on or off duty. Additionally, the resort issues employees unlimited ski lift passes as a perk of employment. At the Snowbird Resort, employees skiing from one location to another while working was common and there was no rule prohibiting it. Answer the following questions using the facts provided, as well as the case opinion included below. Be sure to address each part of each question in your answers.

Questions 1. Can we (the plaintiff) use cases decided under Worker's Compensation law that define "scope of employment" as precedents in our case since it is based on respondeat superior instead ofworker's compensation? What does the Rodman v. CSX Intermodal case say? If we are able to use workers' compensation cases, how might they benefit us?

2. According to the Rodman case, what is the difference between a frolic and a detour? Can you give a hypothetical example of each?

3. It is always important to anticipate the opposition's arguments. If you were representing Snowbird Resort, Inc., how would you argue that the resort should NOT be liable for the injury caused by Brad? Argue their case based on the rules set out in Rodman.

4. Now, based on the law of respondeat superior as set out in Rodman, make an argument in our client's favor (i.e., argue why the Lodge SHOULD be liable for Brad's conduct). Also, what do you think is our best argument and why?

In your argument, you should explain how the requirements of the law are satisfied by facts that favor your position. In other words, don't just list facts as your argument. Explain how they support (prove) your position in light of the law.