Kimberly Saks, as the spouse of Brett S. Saks, decedent, individually and on behalf of all statutory claimants pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-611; and Kimberly Saks, executor of the Estate of Brett S. Saks, in her capacity as personal representative, Plaintiffs/Appellants,
Santa Cruz Valley Union High School District #840, Defendant/Appellee.
Not for Publication – Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court Ariz. R. Civ. App. P. 28(c).
Appeal from the Superior Court in Pinal County No. CV201003211 The Honorable Bradley M. Soos, Judge Pro Tempore
Knapp & Roberts, P.C., Scottsdale By David L. Abney Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants.
Holm Wright Hyde & Hays PLC, Phoenix By Matthew W. Wright and David K. Pauole Counsel for Defendant/Appellee.
Judge Eckerstrom authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Kelly and Judge Espinosa concurred.
¶1 Appellant Kimberly Saks appeals from the trial court's ruling granting summary judgment in favor of appellee Santa Cruz Valley Union High School District #840 (the District). For the following reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Factual and Procedural Background
¶2 In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we view the facts and the reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Bothell v. Two Point Acres, Inc., 192 Ariz. 313, ¶ 2, 965 P.2d 47, 49 (App. 1998). In October 2008, James Shapiro was driving to Florence to attend a teacher training course. On his way, he collided with Brett Saks, a bicyclist, fatally injuring him.
¶3 Brett's widow, Kimberly Saks, filed suit against Shapiro in her individual capacity and as executor of her husband's estate, raising claims for negligence resulting in wrongful death, statutory wrongful death, and statutory survival. Saks later amended her complaint to include Shapiro's employer, the District. She alleged the District was liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior and claimed the District was negligent in its supervision and retention of Shapiro. The District filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that Shapiro "was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the collision." The trial court agreed, granted summary judgment in favor of the District as to all of Saks's claims, and certified the judgment as final pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ariz. R. Civ. P.
¶4Saks now appeals, claiming the court erred in relying on State v. Superior Court (Rousseau), 111 Ariz. 130, 524 P.2d 951 (1974), and finding Shapiro was not acting within the scope of his employment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-120.21(A)(1).
¶5 A trial court should grant summary judgment when there is no genuine dispute of any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Hourani v. Benson Hosp., 211 Ariz. 427, ¶ 13, 122 P.3d 6, 11 (App. ...