Practice point: The defendant was not held vicariously liable for the security guard's conduct because the evidence at trial established
that he was acting solely for personal motives
unrelated to the defendant's business. In addition, the evidence failed to demonstrate that the defendant could reasonably have foreseen the
security guard's conduct.
Student note: Under the doctrine, an employer can be held
vicariously liable for the torts committed by an employee acting within
the scope of the employment, so long as
the tortious conduct is generally foreseeable and a natural incident of
the employment.
Case: Ali v. State of New York, NY Slip Op 01424 ((2d Dept. 2014).
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Expert witness information.
