In Spitsin V

In Spitsin v. WGM Transportation, Inc . , the court held that

A) an employer can never be vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for intentional acts of an employee.
B) it would follow the general rule of law that when an act is done in the course of one's employment, the employer will not ordinarily be excused from liability, although the employee abused his authority and thereby inflicted injury upon another.
C) Johnson was operating within the scope of Johnson's employment with WGM in attempting to collect the fare from Spitsin; consequently, the trial court erred in finding as a matter of law that Spitsin had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted for vicarious liability against WGM.
D) the force employed by Johnson could not fairly be said to have occurred within the scope of Johnson's employment with WGM; consequently, the trial court did not err in finding as a matter of law that Spitsin had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted for vicarious liability against WGM.