As is evident from the plain language of the doctrine, the reasonable person standard does not impose co-employee liability when an employee merely directs a fellow employee to engage in hazardous conduct beyond the usual
scope of employment. Instead, for liability to arise the employee must direct a fellow employee to engage in activity that is both hazardous to a reasonable person and beyond the
scope of employment to a reasonable person.
Noting that "employee" and "
scope of employment" are not defined in the statute, it inferred that Congress intended those terms to have the "accumulated settled meaning under ...
[8], the court found Miller to have created a program within the
scope of employment even though he was paid by the hour and created the work during off hours, at home on his own computer and was not paid overtime.
(51) The default position is that the employee was acting within the
scope of employment, but the DoJ uses the following criteria (52) to make representation decisions:
in the
scope of employment of the party--practice plan or state
Although an employer is not liable when an employee acts outside of his
scope of employment, the employer can be vicariously liable under certain exceptions.
The traditional basis for an employer's liability for its employees' acts is the doctrine of respondeat superior, under which the employer is liable for employee acts that are within the
scope of employment or in furtherance of the employer's interest.(19) "Under respondeat superior, the employer `stands in the shoes' of its employees,"(20) as long as the act in question is within the
scope of employment.
The WC section covers most bodily injuries within the course and
scope of employment. The EL section is "gap-filler" insurance, covering many claims against the employer which fall outside of the workers compensation system.
The objective of these zones is to accelerate industrial activity in backward areas of the province, aimed at enlarging the
scope of employment, checking migration of rural population to big cities and encouraging development of local industries.
Naturally, employers are not necessarily responsible for damages caused by their employees' actions outside the
scope of employment; otherwise, an employer would be an absolute guarantor and strictly liable for any and all acts by their employees under any circumstances.[2]
Further, taxpayers can expect the IRS to expand the
scope of employment tax examinations if health care reform legislation providing for an employer mandate is enacted.
In a representative case, under a legal doctrine know as respondent superior that holds a "master" responsible for his "servants" while in the
scope of employment, violations of record keeping provisions by the manager of a fireams store are attributable to the owner.
