of this case is about a cashier who basically did what he was supposed to do what he reasonably proceed that he was supposed to do premised upon conditions admonitions and instructions that came from the owner manager of the premises which was a gasoline station and a small adjacent over which the cashier was to  manager and consequently subject to the metzler rule regarding management but what we can tell in the facts here the only thing we but what he said he said the instruction was i didn't say anything just physically act to the people though if they're stealing something like i said before you know ask them for the stuff to put it back and leave the store imposition of any responsibility and risk clerk with respect to shoplift of march and i tell you not and you're making back into a an instruction for a period of about sixty days probably more sixty days at least there was a metal baseball bat sitting in full view the only explanation pro for it with respect to that was that it was left there that path back that back particularly in the face of all the other evidence which goes the other way and unfortunately you don't have the square where he left the country well justice it would seem to me of course there's a list of its credibility is always an issue and just as it would seem to me that if indeed sure had left that back on the premises after sixty days one would certainly as expected child to retrieve the weapon make sure there are other places we can certainly presume for that patent weapon to be placed or not they can certainly be used as a pad weapon if the kids are taken one time to prove that what i'm saying i position and i'm going to give it to you now so that i can hear from your opponent later your opponent seems to say that where the reaction of an employee is s bat and whack some over the head to cause the guy to have seizures for the rest of his life even if you were charged with some responsibility here of protecting the property we have offered time showing that  evidence introduce evidence to show that he was still trying to assist the employer and in this particular case that may very well be an issue with facts because he had did not have that's what i was asking you to see if we could tease out of your brief the most salient question is that that could arguably be one that should really go there's no evidence in the record about the past history of mr rob r ends up beating up on a four year old get brawl that you're chasing a ten year old kid but there was substantial evidence there that the national food stores knew about his propensity for violence they knew about or they should have known you will look at what you do in a different light then we will if you're simply an employee because you are making the policy of the school work with regard to raids into so very much and the question is whether you're going to succeed since we're dealing with summary judgment if this were a jury trial i don't think there'd be enough there to all of the cases that he could get his hands now and he says that the scope of employment issue would depend on the particular facts surrounding the alleged altercation you would disagree with the intentional assaults pro form important because he quotes from an illinois case at least in part to further the employer's business now you can say that it's de minimus when he's defending a fifty nine cent pottle  but he was certainly defending that bottle that's what triggered the whole thing ok generally fall within the scope of employment even if it's only in part that he's defending the employer's property that's the first thing to take into consideration and while intentional assails performed purely for the employees personal interests generally well not well there doesn't appear to be any more to it for those individual clubs who have attacked this guy other than the fact that it was triggered by a what he perceived to be a on the other hand he was shooting just to protect the trial and he's off on a frolic of some play and i think the opinion pursued certain points that even accepting that he was stealing papers it was it spouse but to what extent can we simply is a matter of good sense or as a matter of it or is it a matter of the unwarranted taking of judicial notice from a private fact now to the judge back standing behind that bulletproof glass you can't really tell somebody to return the merchandise without leaving the confines of that area because you can't tolerate it from where it is now prohibiting any sort of conduct like this and then this individual for whatever reason it's an insult to do it we're seeking to hold the defendant their employer responsible for that and given everything that they did all the evidence was that they tried to instruct their people not to do this and he did it and i think that has to be looked at it was while i have you know the williams case and heritage no equivocation i think it's similar assaulting someone in either correct or incorrect belief that they are stealing their employer's property and that's exactly what we have here so i think this case fall directly within those two cases and within the because that's what we do to each other but i think of a more worthwhile analogy than having a server in the store say i'm not certain you because of your breaks which is really within the direct line of what  during the day he determines policy he does all the hiring he does all the training that in my humble estimation one of manager does made he was a happy man i was sure that that's  expands the scope of your duties and as such more and more events will be considered as being within the scope of the managers to him as opposed to greater degree than a simple lawyer he doesn't speak for the store with regard to corporate events and other things but certainly within the earth food of the op day by day operation manager simply because he's on the premises measures point out the spec and see in that particular factual scenario a file clerk working late all night long in the lock up offer some kind of text from whatever there's not the public doesn't come in there constantly you put a night well presented the case will be taken