Respondeat Superior. Stephen Brooks was employed as a sales representative for the Bob King Mitsubishi car dealership. Reba Stanley, age eighteen, met with Brooks to test drive a Mitsubishi pickup truck. During the test drive, Brooks assaulted Stanley

Question

"by touching and grabbing her about her arms, hands, groin area, and breasts. He also . . . exposed his genitals and placed her hand on his private parts." When they returned from the test drive, Brooks took her to the Mitsubishi service department and "again exposed himself and tried to force her to touch him." Stanley was able to free herself and left the dealership. Brooks was later convicted on charges arising out of the incident. Stanley sued both Brooks and the car dealership, claiming that she had suffered severe emotional distress as a result of the assault. The trial court granted the dealership's motion for summary judgment and entered a default judgment against Brooks. Stanley appealed, arguing that the dealership should be held liable for Brooks's torts under the doctrine of respondeat superior. What should the appellate court decide? Discuss.

Answer 1

Respondeat superior
The court held that the dealership was not liable on a theory of respondeat superior for the acts of its sales representative. The court explained, "An employer may be liable under the theory of respondeat superior when the employee's act was either expressly authorized, committed within the scope and in furtherance of the employer's business, or subsequently ratified by the employer." The court reasoned that "[t]he alleged sexual assault by defendant Brooks clearly was not within the scope and in furtherance of his employment." The court said that the duties of the sales staff at the dealership were to "meet and greet individuals interested in automobiles, help with selection and place the tag on the vehicle after the transaction." Although Brooks was exercising his authority in taking Stanley for a test drive, "in proceeding to sexually assault her his actions fell within ‘the category of intentional tortious acts designed to carry out an independent purpose of [his] own."