In Barto v. Franchise Enterprises, Inc., 588 So. 2d 1353 (La. App. 2nd Cir. 1991), writ denied, 591 So. 2d 708 (La. 1992), a supervisor at a restaurant was stabbed by an employee of the restaurant when the supervisor questioned him about a theft from the restaurant. The supervisor filed suit against the employer on the theory of vicarious liability. The trial court granted a summary judgment in favor of the supervisor, and against the employer, finding the employer liable for the tortious act of the employee. The appellate court granted writs, reversed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the employee, and granted summary judgment in favor of the employer. The Barto court found that "Fletcher's act of stealing money and assaulting his supervisor during an investigation is clearly beyond the course and scope of his employment." Id. at 1357. Further, the Barto court found that "Fletcher's conduct of stabbing his supervisor did not benefit his employer and was entirely extraneous to his employer's interests. Thus, Fletcher's conduct cannot be regarded as a 'risk of harm fairly attributable to the employer's business.'" Barto, 588 So. 2d at 1357. The supervisor clearly was acting in his employer's interest by seeking to regain the stolen money. However, the tortfeasor sought to avoid being discovered as a thief. The Second Circuit reversed the trial court's denial of the employer's motion for summary judgment, stating: "It is apparent from the circumstances presented in the record that Fletcher intended his actions to harm Barto. The undisputed evidence shows that Fletcher's attack was not related to any of his employment duties, did not further any of his employer's objectives, was not a risk of harm fairly attributable to his employer's business, and was done for purely personal considerations...."