Regarding assigned case Lyon v$.$ Carey, $533$ F$.2d649($Cir$.$ Ct$.$ App. DC $1976)$:

It is difficult to imagine that a sexual assault could be anything other than some "purely and solely personal" gratification, unrelated to the employer's business. How did the court address this?

Select all options that apply.

I. The court stated that even conduct for personal gratification may impute liability to the employer if the conduct arises out of the conduct of the employer's business.

II$.$ The court stated that in no circumstances can conduct for personal gratification may impute liability to the employer because intentional torts inherently fall outside the scope of employment

III. The court concluded that only the court can make the determination of whether the conduct falls within the scope of employment, as the issue is a question of law.

I only

$1$&$||$

I&$.$III

$||11$ &