that, for the purposes of determining respondeat superior liability, an out-of-town employee permitted to use a company truck for purposes related to his work was not acting within the scope of his employment when he used the truck to drive to a bar, where he danced, drank beer, and ate tacos from a food truck in the bar’s parking lot). ¶ 24 The McCloud I court also recognized that reliance on workers’ compensation cases may be “misplaced” in a negligence action because “[w]orkers’ compensation statutes are interpreted liberally to protect the injured worker.” 217 Ariz. at 92, ¶ 32, 170 P.3d at 701 (citing Schuck & Sons Constr. v. Indus. Comm’n, 213 Ariz. 74, 77, ¶ 13, 138 P.3d 1201, 1204 (App.2006)); accord Hopkins v. Indus. Comm’n, 176 Ariz. 173, 177, 859 P.2d 796, 800 (App.1993) (<HOLDING>). Thus, cases addressing workers’ compensation
recognizing that workers compensation statutes are to be liberally construed citing flamingo motor inn v indus commn 133 ariz 200 201 650 p2d 502 503 app1982 holding that pleadings under the rico act are to be liberally construed holding that coas should be construed liberally holding that the workers compensation act is to be liberally construed and reasonable doubts as to construction are to be resolved in favor of coverage holding that pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed