In the context of intentional torts, what is the general rule regarding employer liability?

In the context of intentional torts, the general rule regarding employer liability is that employers are typically not liable for the intentional torts of their employees that are committed outside the scope of employment or are not directly related to the job. This principle aligns with the idea that intentional torts, such as assault or battery, are acts that an employee may commit for personal reasons rather than as part of performing their job duties.

Since intentional torts are inherently wrongful acts carried out with a purpose to inflict harm, they are distinguished from negligent torts, where an employer might be held responsible under the doctrine of vicarious liability if the negligent act occurred in the scope of employment. In several jurisdictions, when an employee engages in conduct that is considered to be an intentional tort, an employer cannot generally be held liable if the tort did not stem from the employee's job responsibilities or if it was not foreseeable. This is why the assertion regarding the employer's lack of liability for intentional torts involving force is sound; the focus is on whether the act was committed in furtherance of the employer's business or merely for the employee's personal motivations or disputes.

Overall, the liability of employers for an employee's intentional torts hinges on the concepts of scope of