of living at the hotel “intensified the risk of injury due to extraordinary natural causes.” Deffenbaugh, 313 Ark. at 106, 852 S.W.2d at 808. That is to say, her presence on the premises during the fire exposed her to a greater degree of risk than someone who did not live on the premises. In fact, the parties stipulated that Nimisha was on call twenty-four hours per day, and while living on the premises, she was to carry out her responsibilities as an assistant manager of the hotel by being available for work duties at all times. Thus, Nimisha indirectly advanced her employer’s interests, even while remaining on the premises during the fire. In its substituted majority opinion, the court of appeals cited Cook v. ABF Freight Systems, Inc., 88 Ark. App. 86, 194 S.W.3d 794 (2004) (<HOLDING>), for the proposition that an injury is not
holding that an interstate driver en route to motel for rest stop required by icc and by employer rules was within scope of employment holding that executing officers reasonably relied on judges determination that there was probable cause to search motel room even though search warrant affidavit failed tp mention a connection between motel room and criminal activity holding that executing officers reasonably relied on judges determination that there was probable cause to search motel room even though search warrant affidavit failed to mention a connection between motel room and criminal activity holding that a truck driver who was on call was not compensated for an injury in a motel room provided by his employer holding that executing officers reasonably relied on judges determination that there was probable cause to search motel room for evidence of drug activity even though search warrant affidavit failed to mention a connection between motel room and criminal activity