Is a Master Subject to Liability for the Torts of His Servants Committed While Acting In the Scope of Their Employment ?
In Amstutz v. the Prudential Insurance Company (1940), 136 Ohio St. 404, 26 N.E.2d 454, paragraph two of the syllabus, the Supreme Court of Ohio held the following:
"A deviation by a servant will not, as a matter of law, be deemed to be an abandonment of his service to his employer, unless such deviation is so divergent from his regular duty that its very character severs the relationship of master and servant."
In addressing the issue of scope of employment, the Supreme Court of Ohio in Osborne v. Lyles (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 326, 329, 587 N.E.2d 825, noted the following:
"The doctrine of respondeat superior is expressed in the Restatement of the Law 2d, Agency (1958) 481, Section 219(1), which states as follows:
'A master is subject to liability for the torts of his servants committed while acting in the scope of their employment.
' Ohio law provides, 'it is well-established that in order for an employer to be liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, the tort of the employee must be committed within the scope of employment. Moreover, where the tort is intentional, the behavior giving rise to the tort must be "calculated to facilitate or promote the business for which the servant was employed, Byrd v. Faber (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 56, 58, 565 N.E.2d 584, 587."