## Facts

- Robert G. Nichols II drove a pickup truck westbound on Route 9 in eastern Maine.
- Oscar Gonzalez, an on-duty tractor-trailer driver employed by Land Transport Corporation, drove behind Nichols and repeatedly attempted to pass in no-passing zones while following too closely.
- Nichols responded twice with an obscene hand gesture.
- At a red light in Brewer, Maine, Gonzalez exited his truck, confronted Nichols, attacked him with a rubber-coated metal cable, and later stabbed Nichols in the thigh with a knife.
- Gonzalez was convicted of aggravated assault.
- Nichols sued Land Transport in a diversity action seeking to impose respondeat superior liability for Gonzalez’s intentional tort.

## Issues

1. Whether, under Maine law applying Restatement (Second) of Agency § 228, Gonzalez’s road-rage assault occurred within the scope of his employment so as to make Land Transport vicariously liable.
2. Whether summary judgment was proper where the assault occurred on the delivery route and during working time but appeared motivated by personal anger.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Land Transport.
- Applying Restatement (Second) of Agency § 228 as used by Maine courts, the court held Gonzalez acted outside the scope of employment as a matter of law.
- Although the incident occurred during work time and along the route, the assault was not the kind of conduct Gonzalez was employed to perform, was not motivated even partly by a purpose to serve Land Transport, and involved intentional force that was expectable neither by job duties nor by the employer.
- Because no reasonable factfinder could satisfy the § 228 requirements on this record, there was no genuine issue of material fact for trial.

## Legal Principles

- Under Maine law, scope of employment is evaluated under Restatement (Second) of Agency § 228.
- Conduct is within the scope of employment only if it (a) is of the kind the employee is employed to perform, (b) occurs substantially within authorized time and space limits, (c) is actuated at least in part by a purpose to serve the employer, and (d) when intentional force is used, the force is not unexpectable by the employer.
- Temporal and geographic connection to work is insufficient by itself; a plaintiff must show at least some employer-serving purpose.
- Extreme, personally motivated assaults arising from anger at another motorist, even if occurring while on duty, are outside the scope of employment as a matter of law when the force used is aberrational and unrelated to assigned duties.

## Conclusion

The court held that an on-duty truck driver’s road-rage attack—motivated solely by personal animus and involving severe intentional violence—fell outside the scope of employment under Maine’s Restatement-based test, defeating respondeat superior liability and warranting summary judgment for the employer.


Nichols v. Land Transp. Corp., 223 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2000)