## Facts

- V.I.P., Inc. sponsored a promotional event at Oxford Plains Speedway and solicited hourly employees to volunteer for set-up in exchange for $25 cash and a T-shirt.
- Justin Laliberte, an hourly warehouse employee, agreed to assist, drove his own car to the Speedway early in the morning, worked for about an hour setting up, and then left.
- While driving home from the Speedway, Laliberte crossed into oncoming traffic and collided with a vehicle occupied by James, Nancy, and Brittany Spencer.
- Nancy Spencer died; James and Brittany Spencer were injured.
- The Spencers sued Laliberte and V.I.P., alleging V.I.P. was vicariously liable under respondeat superior for Laliberte’s negligent driving.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for V.I.P., concluding Laliberte was not acting within the scope of employment when driving home.

## Issues

1. Whether the record created a genuine issue of material fact that Laliberte was acting within the scope of his employment while driving home from the employer-sponsored event, making summary judgment for V.I.P. improper.

## Decision

- The Maine Supreme Judicial Court vacated the summary judgment for V.I.P. and remanded.
- Viewing the evidence in the nonmovants’ favor, the court held a fact-finder could conclude Laliberte’s travel was within the scope of employment under Maine’s Restatement-based test.
- The court declined to treat the “coming and going” concept as a categorical bar at the summary-judgment stage in these circumstances.
- A dissent would have applied a commuting rule to hold Laliberte outside the scope of employment as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- An employee’s conduct is within the scope of employment when: (a) it is of the kind the employee is employed to perform; (b) it occurs substantially within authorized time and space limits; and (c) it is motivated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the employer.
- Scope of employment is generally fact-intensive; summary judgment is appropriate only when no genuine dispute of material fact exists and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
- Travel related to an employer-sponsored, compensated assignment may fall within scope of employment where the trip is necessary to perform the work and may be found to serve the employer’s purposes.
- A general commuting concept does not automatically remove travel from scope of employment; the inquiry remains case-specific under the scope-of-employment factors.

## Conclusion

Because a reasonable fact-finder could determine that Laliberte’s compensated participation in an employer-sponsored promotional event included travel that served V.I.P.’s business purposes and occurred within authorized time and space limits, the court held that scope of employment could not be resolved as a matter of law and vacated summary judgment for V.I.P.


Spencer v. V.I.P., Inc., 910 A.2d 366 (Me. 2006)