Question

Abel was employed as a security guard for Seep Corporation. Abel's job was to guard a fenced-in area and to use force to keep intruders from climbing the fence to enter the plant. His working hours were from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. At about 11:00 P.M. one evening, Abel drove past his place of employment. He saw a teenager named Johnny climbing the outside of the fence that he guarded during the day. Angered by this violation of Seep's property rights and by the fact that Johnny had called him a "potbellied moron" only three days earlier, Abel stopped his car, ran up to the fence, pulled Johnny off of it, and beat him up. Johnny sues Seep Corporation for Abel's assault and battery (both intentional torts). Which of the following is most likely to be the court's verdict?​
A. Seep's is directly liable because Abel was an employee of the corporation at the time of the incident.
B. Seep's is not liable because Abel didn't act within the scope of his employment.
C. Seep's is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, since Abel was an employee.
D. Seep's is not liable for the intentional torts committed by its employees.

Answer 1

Answer:

B) Seep's is not liable because Abel didn't act within the scope of his employment.

Explanation:

Seep Corporation is only liable for actions made by its employees when they are acting within the scope of their employment and within labor hours. Even though Abel was a security guard whose job was to guard the fence, he was outside his work hours. His work shift is from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. and the incident occurred at 11 P.M. which is 6 hours after his shift was over.