Francis drives a delivery truck for Weston Industries. In the middle of his delivery route, Francis stops to have a two-hour lunch with friends twenty miles away. While in the restaurant, Francis slips on a puddle left by an employee and injures himself. Francis would normally be considered to be acting:.
a. within the scope of employment.
b. outside the scope of employment.
c. as a negligent agent.
d. in mis-representation of Weston Industries.

Option B, OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT.

Explanation:

Scope of employment refers to where an employee was and what actions were being undertaken when the injury took place. If the employee was within the scope of employment, then the employer would likely be held responsible. But, if the employee was outside the scope of employment, then it is harder to prove the employer was negligent.

Within the scope employment means the injury took place; on or near work premises, during business trips, within a company's vehicle, while running an errand for the employer.

Outside the scope employment means the employee was not conducting any official business when the injury took place.

In the case of Francis, although he was on an official errand, he stopped in the middle of delivery route to have lunch with his friends which was not part of his official errand and he got injured while doing so.

Therefore, Francis would normally be considered to be acting: OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT.

answer; i believe the correct answer is (4.0);