Rebecca Skala, etc. v. Comfort Systesm USA, Inc.

Date: 11-28-2025

Case Number: CV-23-234

Judge:

Court: Circuit Court, Independence County, Arkansas

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Defendant's Attorney:

Description: Batesville, Arkansas personal injury lawyer represented the Plaintiff on wrongful death auto negligence claims.

On October 28, 2021, Rebecca Skala, the mother of Christopher and Xavior Skala, filed a complaint against Comfort Systems and Conboy. Skala alleged that Conboy was hired as a welder for Comfort Systems in January 2021. According to the complaint, as part of Conboy's job duties, he would travel to jobsites around Arkansas. Prior to the accident, Conboy had been assigned to a jobsite in Ash Flat. Skala contended that traveling to Ash Flat was contemplated as part of his employment with Comfort Systems, and Conboy received additional compensation for his living and travel expenses. Skala alleged a directnegligence claim against Conboy and direct- and vicarious-liability claims against Comfort Systems under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

* * *

Contrary to appellants' argument that there are genuine issues of disputed material fact remaining, we hold that the facts are undisputed. However, reasonable minds could draw reasonable inconsistent hypotheses from the following undisputed facts: Conboy was required to sign an authorization allowing Comfort Systems to obtain his driving record; Conboy was required to have the "ability to travel, as needed, for projects"; Comfort Systems' had a business model of sending field employees to remote locations to perform skilled labor on projects; Comfort Systems adopted a travel policy to compensate its employees for travel time; Comfort Systems had the ability to discipline its employees for violations of the travel policy, and in fact, it reprimanded Conboy for traveling from home while selecting the per diem pay. We hold that reasonable minds could draw reasonable inconsistent conclusions from the above facts as to whether Conboy was in the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. Stated differently, because reasonable persons might reach a different conclusion as to whether Comfort Systems can be vicariously liable under respondeat superior for Conboy's alleged negligence, summary judgment was inappropriate. In light of our discussion above and our standard of review, we reverse the circuit court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Comfort Systems.

Outcome: On February 21, 2023, the circuit court entered its findings of facts and conclusions of law granting summary judgment in favor of Comfort Systems and dismissing with prejudice all of appellants' claims against Comfort Systems.

Reversed and remanded; court of appeals opinion vacated.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: