Also known as: scope of employment · scope of his employment · scope of her employment
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Conduct by a servant that is of the kind the servant is employed to perform, occurs substantially within authorized time and space limits, and is actuated at least in part by a purpose to serve the master.
Scott Summers, a Sapphire Technologies technician, climbed a tower during a storm to complete an urgent repair assigned by his supervisor. The supervisor learned of the lightning risk but took no steps to recall Summers or provide shelter. Summers suffered a severe shock. Because the repair occurred while Summers acted in the scope of his employment, the company faced liability for failing to avert the known harm.
Selena Singh, a Silverline Industries driver, crashed the company truck while delivering parts on her route. A manager arrived, saw Singh pinned and bleeding, yet provided no first aid and delayed calling emergency services. Singh suffered worsened injuries. Because the delivery fell within the scope of Singh's employment, the company is liable for the negligent failure to render care.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Samantha Stone and Santiago Sanchez agreed to distribute controlled substances. Stone made statements to an undercover officer while Sanchez waited in the car outside. Because the statements were made during acts within the scope of the conspiratorial employment, they were admissible against Sanchez under agency principles.
Sasha Stone, president of Solstice Ventures, directed shipment of mislabeled drugs. The company was convicted, and Stone was charged even though he claimed no personal knowledge of the labels. Because Stone acted within the scope of his employment as the responsible corporate officer, he faced individual criminal liability.
Conduct falls within the scope when it is of the kind the servant is employed to perform, occurs substantially within authorized time and space limits, and is actuated at least in part by a purpose to serve the master.
Supporting sources
No. Liability still attaches if the act is at least partly actuated by a purpose to serve the master even when anger or personal pique is also present.
Supporting sources
Yes. When the employee acts within the scope of employment, the employer faces vicarious liability even if the conduct violates criminal statutes, provided the acts occur while performing authorized tasks.
Supporting sources
…rationale that an agent's acts or words could be attributed to his principle only so long as the agent was acting within the scope of his employment. See Levie, Hearsay and Conspiracy: A Reexamination of the Co-Conspirators' Exception to the Hearsay Rule, 52 Mich. L. Rev. 1159, 1161 (1954) (Levie); 4 D. Louisell & C. Mueller, Federal…