The Arkansas Supreme Court has overturned a lower court’s decision in a case involving a fatal car accident, ruling that the trial court improperly applied a workers’ compensation rule to a tort case. The ruling, delivered on November 20, 2025, reverses the Independence County Circuit Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Comfort Systems USA, Inc., and Comfort Systems USA (Arkansas), Inc. (collectively, “Comfort Systems”).
The case stems from a tragic motor-vehicle accident that occurred on September 23, 2021. Cody Conboy, an employee of Comfort Systems Arkansas, was driving from his home to a job site in Ash Flat when his vehicle crossed the center line and struck a daycare transport van. The accident resulted in the deaths of the van’s driver, Tammy Gardner, and five-year-old Christopher Skala. Three-year-old Xavior Skala was also injured.
Background of the Lawsuit
Following the accident, Rebecca Skala, as the special administrator of Christopher’s estate and guardian of Xavior’s estate, along with James Gardner, as special administrator of Tammy Gardner’s estate, filed lawsuits against Comfort Systems and Conboy. The plaintiffs alleged direct and vicarious liability against Comfort Systems.
The core of the case revolved around whether Conboy was acting within the scope of his employment with Comfort Systems at the time of the accident. This is crucial because, under the legal doctrine of *respondeat superior*, an employer can be held liable for the actions of an employee if those actions occur within the scope of their employment.
The Circuit Court’s Decision
The Independence County Circuit Court granted Comfort Systems’ motion for summary judgment. The court ruled that Conboy was not acting within the scope of his employment when the accident occurred, relying on the “going-and-coming” rule. This rule, generally applied in workers’ compensation cases, states that an employee traveling to and from work is typically not considered to be acting within the scope of their employment. The circuit court determined that the going-and-coming rule should be extended to *respondeat superior* liability cases.
The court found that Comfort Systems did not have control over Conboy’s travel decisions and did not benefit from his travel. Therefore, the court concluded that Comfort Systems was not liable for Conboy’s actions.
The Supreme Court’s Reasoning
The Arkansas Supreme Court disagreed with the circuit court’s application of the going-and-coming rule. The Supreme Court held that the going-and-coming rule, which is typically used in worker’s compensation cases, should not be applied to determine liability in this tort case. The court cited a previous case, *Van Dalsen v. Inman*, which established that workers’ compensation cases are not applicable to master and servant cases.
The Supreme Court determined that the traditional respondeat superior analysis should be applied. They found that, while the fact that Conboy was en route to his remote job site was a factor to consider, there were genuine issues of disputed material fact regarding whether Conboy was acting within the scope of his employment.
The court pointed to several undisputed facts, including:
* Conboy was required to authorize Comfort Systems to access his driving record.
* Conboy’s job required the “ability to travel, as needed, for projects.”
* Comfort Systems had a business model of sending employees to remote locations.
* Comfort Systems had a travel policy to compensate employees for travel time.
* Comfort Systems disciplined Conboy for violating the travel policy.
The Supreme Court concluded that reasonable minds could draw different conclusions from these facts as to whether Conboy was acting within the scope of his employment. Therefore, summary judgment was inappropriate.
Direct Liability Claims
The Supreme Court also addressed the appellants’ argument that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment on their direct-liability claims. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that Comfort Systems had not moved for summary judgment on those claims. The court cited the case of *Young v. Staude*, which states that a trial court cannot grant relief beyond what is requested in a motion for summary judgment.
The Dissenting Opinion
Justice Rhonda K. Wood dissented from the majority opinion. Justice Wood argued that the circuit court correctly granted summary judgment. She stated that the facts of the case placed it squarely within the general rule that an employee is not acting within the scope of employment when commuting to and from work. She believed that the majority was creating new exceptions to the general rule for employees who travel to remote job sites and receive travel allowances.
Impact of the Ruling
The Supreme Court’s decision reverses the lower court’s ruling and sends the case back for further proceedings. This means the plaintiffs will have the opportunity to present their case to a jury, which will decide whether Conboy was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. If the jury finds that he was, Comfort Systems could be held liable for his actions.