## Facts

- Clay Fruit, a life insurance salesman employed by The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, attended a required sales convention near Homer, Alaska.
- Attendance was a condition of employment; Equitable arranged the convention to include business meetings and employer-encouraged social interaction with invited out-of-state insurance guests.
- Equitable required participants to travel by private transportation and reimbursed expenses; Fruit drove his own car.
- After convention social events, Fruit drove late at night to a restaurant/bar to locate and socialize with out-of-state guests, then began driving back to the convention headquarters around 2:00 a.m.
- John Schreiner’s disabled car was parked with its hood raised; Schreiner stood in front of it.
- Fruit braked, skidded across the center line, struck Schreiner’s car, and crushed Schreiner between the vehicles.
- Schreiner suffered amputation of his left leg and permanent disabling injury to his right leg.

## Issues

1. Whether sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding that Fruit was acting within the course and scope of employment at the time of the accident, making Equitable vicariously liable under respondeat superior.
2. Whether Fruit’s late-night travel between convention-related locations was a personal deviation that ended any employer-related purpose.
3. Whether the jury could impose direct liability on Equitable for negligence in planning and conducting the convention.

## Decision

- The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Schreiner.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find Fruit acted within the scope of employment when the accident occurred.
- The court left undisturbed the verdict imposing vicarious liability on Equitable and the jury’s finding of Equitable’s direct negligence, as well as the damages award.

## Legal Principles

- Scope of employment is a fact-specific inquiry, typically appropriate for jury resolution when supported by evidence.
- Respondeat superior may rest on enterprise/risk-allocation reasoning, not solely on whether the employer controlled the employee’s precise act at the moment of injury.
- Employer-required attendance at a work function, combined with employer-encouraged social activity integral to the function’s objectives, can bring related travel within the scope of employment.
- Travel between locations connected to a required work event may be treated differently from ordinary commuting because the travel risks can be attributable to the employer’s enterprise and arrangements.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed liability against both the employee-driver and the employer, concluding the jury could reasonably find that late-night travel undertaken to further convention objectives and to return to the convention site fell within the employee’s scope of employment, supporting respondeat superior and the verdict for severe personal injuries.


Fruit v. Schreiner, 502 P.2d 133 (Alaska 1972)