Chapter 14 Part 2: Case Question #6 on page 351. Meyers v. National Detective Agency, 281, A.2d 435, Ct. App., D.C. (1971) Myers v. National Detective Agency. This is a good discussion of when a master is liable for the negligence of his servant if at the time of the negligent act the latter is acting within the scope of his employment, and this liability applies even in instances where the servant, while disobeying his master's orders injures a third party. Tell me what the court said as to why or why not the employer could be liable in this case. Agency. 8. Meyers, employe he shoul making discharg time pa 6. Picard was a security guard for National Detective In violation of company rules, he had his own trained German shepherd dog with him while on duty. Meyers, a passerby, stopped to talk to Picard about the dog, which was in the back of a marked company car. Picard said he could show Meyers how well the dog was trained. When he took the dog from the car, it attacked and injured Meyers. Meyers sued National Detective, which argued that Picard's actions were outside the scope of his employment because he was violating company policy. Could the employer be liable? (Meyers v. National Detective Agency, 281 A.2d 435, Ct. App. D.C. (1971)] for Fast Coast Furniture and do 861 N.E 9. The Ta the win so the compa Mr. Ta a road conter appare