Cited by

Although an employee driving a company vehicle might be evidence supporting that an employee was subject to the employer’s control and acting within the scope and course of employment, ¶ 34 (App. 2012), a deputy who drives a county vehicle while carrying out law enforcement duties is not subject to any county control for the reasons previously explained.

¶ 13 (App. 2012) (finding a superior court does not abuse its discretion in its denial of a motion to amend if it would be futile).

¶ 13 10 ZUMAR v. CAYMUS Opinion of the Court (App. 2012).

(“The Arizona rule is that the community is liable for the intentional torts of either spouse if the tortious act was committed with the intent to benefit the community, regardless of whether in fact the community receives any benefit.”) (citation omitted).

¶ 32 , (restating the “longstanding rule” that a principal is not responsible for physical harm caused by the negligence of its non-employee driver unless the principal authorized and directed the agent’s manner of driving).

¶ 13, (“When a motion to amend a pleading is denied, we review the denial for a clear abuse of discretion.”).