Which of the following is NOT a situation where an employer could be vicariously liable?

An employer is vicariously liable for the actions of an employee when those actions occur within the scope of employment. This principle, rooted in agency law, holds employers accountable for the negligent or wrongful actions of their employees that take place while the employees are performing duties related to their jobs.

When an employee deliberately causes harm to a third party, this typically falls outside the employer's scope of liability. Such actions are seen as personal misdeeds rather than an extension of the employee's work duties. In this case, the employee's intention to cause harm indicates a personal motivation, which is not aligned with the interests of the employer, thus breaking the connection necessary for vicarious liability to apply.

In contrast, activities where an employee is performing tasks as requested by the employer or even acting within the scope of their employment, albeit against instructions, tend to keep the employer liable because these actions are still performed under the employment relationship. Similarly, an employee committing a negligent act while on a personal errand does not generally implicate the employer unless the errand is closely tied to the employee's work duties, which is a separate consideration.

Hence, the correct answer reflects the understanding that intentional torts committed by employees are acts that employers typically are not held