• Employers and Employees:
– Respondeat Superior
• If w/in scope of employment
• Employers and Independent Contractors :
– Respondeat Superior
• Control Test
– Nondelegable Duty
– Apparent Agency

• General Rule : Employers are not vicariously liable for their employees’ intentional torts
• Exceptions :
– Rodebush
1) Act done while engaged in employer’s business, and
2) Act is incident to employer’s business and arises from impulse/emotion that is a natural outgrowth of work
– Fahrendorff
1) The misconduct is foreseeable, and
2) Involves abuse of power/inappropriate contact
– Motivated in part by desire to serve employer’s interests

• General Rule : Employers are not vicariously liable for independent contractors absent a principalagent/master-servant relationship.
• Control Test : Factors for determining if principalagent/master-servant
• *Extent control work
• Individual engaged in distinct occupation or business
– Supplies own tools, instrumentalities, place of work
– Length of employment
– How paid (by time or job)
• Whether work part of employer’s regular business
• Skill required
• Whether parties believe creating master-servant relationship

• Rule : When applicable, the employer may delegate the work but not legal responsibility for the work
• Legal Effect : Employer vicariously liable
• Application : Nondelegable duty if
– Work is “inherently dangerous”
– Public policy/ justice
– Duties imposed by statute
– Property owners and risky condition
– Businesses supplying chattels

• Employers are vicariously liable for independent contractors if:
1) Appearance of a principal-agency relationship; and
2) The plaintiff relies on the apparent agency
• “ But for” approach : Injury would not have occurred in absence of justifiable reliance
• “Reasonable belief” approach : Plaintiff reasonably believed there was a principal-agent relationship (Restatement Torts)

Paul is 5 months behind in his rent. Larry, his landlord, hires Ejections-R-Us to dispossess Paul of his apartment. In the past Ejections-R-Us has used undue force when helping to evict tenants. To address the problem, Ejections-R-Us recently required all of its employees to attend a 20 minute training session, where they were instructed not to use force when evicting tenants. Evan, an employee of Ejections-R-Us, is assigned to help evict Paul. Paul refuses to leave the apartment and screams various epithets at Evan. Evan then uses undue force against Paul in an effort to induce him to leave the apartment. Paul sues both
Ejections-R-Us and Larry, alleging they are vicariously liable for Evan’s tortious conduct. Will Paul prevail?

A city ordinance requires that all apartments be equipped with working smoke detectors. Larry the landlord hires
Elise the electrician to install smoke detectors in each apartment. Elise has an excellent reputation and has done work for Larry before. Although Elise installs a smoke alarm in Tonya’s apartment, she fails to make sure that it is functioning properly. Turns out Elise was negligent in her installation of Tonya’s smoke alarm and it does not work properly. Tonya is injured in a fire that started in her apartment while she was asleep. Her expert witness testifies that she would have escaped the fire without injury had the smoke detector been working properly. Tonya sues Larry. Will Larry be vicariously liable for Elise’s negligence?