Home Table of Contents

AMI 703 Scope of Employment—Employee Driving Employer's Vehicle

Arkansas Supreme Court Committee On Jury Instructions-Civil

Ark. Model Jury Instr., Civil AMI 703
Arkansas Model Jury Instructions-Civil
November 2021 Update
Arkansas Supreme Court Committee On Jury Instructions-Civil
Chapter 7. Agency—Employment—Partnership—Joint Enterprise—Imputed Liability
AMI 703 Scope of Employment—Employee Driving Employer's Vehicle
A. The vehicle driven by (driver) was owned by (employer) and (driver) was a regular employee of (employer). Therefore, (employer) has the burden to prove that (driver) was not acting within the scope of [his][her] employment at the time of the occurrence.
B. If you find that the vehicle being driven by (driver) was owned by (alleged employer) and that (driver) was a regular employee of (alleged employer), then (employer) has the burden to prove that (driver)was not acting within the scope of [his][her] employment at the time of the occurrence.
NOTE ON USE
Use A when ownership of the vehicle and status of the employee are admitted; use B when they are in dispute.
COMMENT
When an employee is driving a vehicle owned by the employer, and an accident occurs, there is a presumption of fact that the employee is acting within the scope of his employment. The party against whom the presumption is directed has the burden of overcoming this presumption. Id. See Ark. R. Evid. 301. In Nipper, the Supreme Court reviewed earlier cases which described this presumption by various terms and clarified that the proper description is a presumption of fact.
Facts other than those set out in AMI 703 should not be included in the instruction. Steel Erectors, Inc. v. Lee, 253 Ark. 151, 484 S.W.2d 874 (1972). It is error to give this instruction when the vehicle is owned by the employee even though the vehicle bears the employer’s business sign. Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Wheeling Pipeline, Inc., 263 Ark. 711, 567 S.W.2d 117 (1978).
End of Document