I actually don't know whether Monte is technically an employee of the University; that's another interesting legal question. Let's assume he is, though, just for the sake of this discussion...spider wrote:If I remember, UM can be held liable for intentional torts committed by Monte (Respondeat Superior). It will be more difficult to impose respondeat superior in an intentional torts case, but I'm almost positive it can be done.
Is Monte and employee of the University? What does the general public believe? I don't know. It certainly could be argued that the tort was committed in the course of Monte's employment.
I'm a few years removed from this material, but the point I'm trying to get at is that, as I recall, in order to hold the University vicariously liable for an intentional tort committed by an employee, the plaintiff has to show that the commission of the tort was within the scope of the employee's duties. This is why, going back to the example I used earlier, a bar owner can be held liable if a bouncer beats up a patron in his bar but, for example, an owner of a furniture store would not be liable if one of his delivery men beat up a guy that he encountered while out delivering furniture. The bouncer's job demands that he get into the occasional scuffle, and thus, if he goes a little overboard, the bar owner can be held liable. That's not true of the furniture delivery guy, or of Monte.
Vicarious liability for an employee's negligent acts carries a lower standard, and thus, the University probably could be held vicariously liable for Monte's negligence if it can be proven that he acted negligently, but I think arguing that UM should be held vicariously liable for battery is a tough sell here.
(Unless there's a reason not to include something, like a desire not to open the door to certain evidence you don't want the jury to hear -- probably not a factor here, though.)
