Stephen Brooks was employed as a sales representative for the Bob King Mitsubishi car dealership. Reba Stanley, age eighteen, met with Brooks to test drive a Mitsubishi pickup truck. During the test drive, Brooks assaulted Stanley “by touching and grabbing her about her arms, hands, groin area, and breasts. He also exposed his genitals and placed her hand on his private parts.” When they returned from the test drive, Brooks took her to the Mitsubishi service department and “again exposed himself and tried to force her to touch him.” Stanley was able to free herself and left the dealership. Brooks was later convicted on charges arising out of the incident. Stanley sued both Brooks and the car dealership, claiming that she had suffered severe emotional distress as a result of the assault. The trial court granted the dealership’s motion for summary judgment and entered a default judgment against Brooks. Stanley appealed, arguing that the dealership should be held liable for Brooks’s torts under the doctrine of respond eat superior. What should the appellate court decide?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Under the doctrine of respondent superior an employer may be liable when the employees actions were ... View the full answer