If Jones deviated as a matter of law, the deviation must be found at some point farther into the evening. B If stopping and taking a “reasonable break” does not take Jones outside the scope, is a 3-4 hour break unreasonable as a matter of law? We are unable to say so from the record before us, for many of the same reasons that we cannot say that any break does not automatically remove a driver from the scope. The question of what is reasonable must be informed by a host of facts that have yet to be developed: What rules and policies applied to his situation? How far had he driven that day, and how much farther had he to go? When was his last stop, and when would he next have a chance to stop? See, e.g., Turnbow v. Hayes Freight Lines, 15 Ill.App.2d 57, 145 N.E.2d 377, 380 (1957) (<HOLDING>). The temporal and spatial circumstances of
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 harassing supervisor acted within scope of employment but employer was not liable because of its quick and effective remediation holding that it is well established that whether an employees actions were within the scope of employment is a question of fact and even if some of the actions were unauthorized the question of whether the actions were within the scope of employment is for the jury 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 an injury is not within the scope of employment after the employee has left work unless the injury was caused by the employers negligence