SSG. Ludwig had been employed to perform.
49. SSG. Ludwig's trip from the Sheraton Motor Inn on the night of December 16, 1976 was not actuated by a purpose to serve the Department of the Army.
50. SSG. Ludwig was reprimanded by his District Recruiting Commander, Col. Joseph R. Clelan, for his use of the government vehicle on the night of December 16, 1976. The written reprimand was communicated to SSG. Ludwig in the form of a letter from Col. Clelan.
51. Pursuant to the requirements of "Joint Procedures for Management of Administrative Use Motor Vehicles, AR 58-1" an investigation of the circumstances surrounding the accident and the operation of the government vehicle by Sergeant Ludwig at the time of the accident was made by his commanding officers.
52. An accident report prepared by Robert H. Novotni, Logistics Officer, and reviewed and approved by Joseph R. Clelan, Lieutenant Colonel, USAREC, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, states that Sergeant Ludwig was on duty at the time of the accident.
53. Pursuant to the requirements of "Joint Procedures for Management of Administrative Use Motor Vehicles, AR 58-1" an investigation of the circumstances surrounding the accident and the operation of the government vehicle by Sergeant Ludwig at the time of the accident was made by his commanding officers who found that there was no indication of drugs or alcoholic beverages being present.
54. No disciplinary action was taken against Sergeant Ludwig as a result of his involvement in the accident other than the reprimand.
55. Neither the United States Army nor the United States Government assessed any financial liability for damages to the government owned vehicle against Sergeant Ludwig as a result of the accident.
56. Sergeant Ludwig's military driver's license was not revoked or suspended by the United States Army as a result of the motor vehicle accident.
57. At the time the accident occurred, Sergeant Ludwig believed that he was authorized to operate the government vehicle assigned to him for the purpose of obtaining a meal away from the Sheraton Motor Inn.
58. There was no public transportation available to Sergeant Ludwig who thus had to use his assigned government vehicle in order to leave the Sheraton Motor Inn for any purpose.
The parties agree that this court is to look to Pennsylvania law to determine whether Sergeant Ludwig was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. See Williams v. United States, 350 U.S. 857, 76 S. Ct. 100, 100 L. Ed. 761 (1955) (per curiam); Simpson v. United States, 484 F. Supp. 387 (W.D.Pa.1980). Pennsylvania has adopted § 228 of the Restatement (Second) Agency regarding scope of employment. Winward v. Rhodewalt, 203 Pa.Super. 369, 198 A.2d 623 (1964); Kemerer v. United States, 330 F. Supp. 731 (W.D.Pa.1971), aff'd, 474 F.2d 1338 (3d Cir. 1973) (mem.).
Section 228 provides as follows:
(1) Conduct of a servant is within the scope of employment if, but only if: