Under which circumstance might an employer be liable for an employee’s intentional tort?

An employer may be held liable for an employee's intentional tort if that act involves the use of force that is inherent to the employee's position. This liability stems from the doctrine of vicarious liability, which holds employers accountable for the actions of their employees when those actions occur within the scope of employment.

When an employee engages in conduct that is closely related to their job duties, particularly when such conduct involves the use of force that could reasonably be expected within the framework of their employment, the employer may be seen as endorsing or bearing responsibility for that conduct. For instance, if a security guard uses force to remove an unruly patron, the employer could be liable for the actions taken, assuming they were carried out in the context of fulfilling job responsibilities. This relationship highlights the connection between the employee's role and the tortious behavior.

In contrast, circumstances where the employee's actions are personal in nature, such as running an errand unrelated to work or acting against direct instructions, often cut off the employer’s liability. In these cases, the acts do not fall under the scope of employment, making it less likely for the employer to be held responsible for such intentional torts.