Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 803

524US2

Unit: $U99

[09-15-00 14:41:05] PAGES PGT: OPIN

758

BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. v. ELLERTH

Opinion of the Court

B

Scope of employment does not deﬁne the only basis for
employer liability under agency principles.
In limited cir-
cumstances, agency principles impose liability on employers
even where employees commit torts outside the scope of em-
ployment. The principles are set forth in the much-cited
§ 219(2) of the Restatement:

“(2) A master is not subject to liability for the torts of
his servants acting outside the scope of their employ-
ment, unless:

“(a) the master intended the conduct or the conse-

quences, or

“(b) the master was negligent or reckless, or
“(c) the conduct violated a non-delegable duty of the

master, or

“(d) the servant purported to act or to speak on behalf
of the principal and there was reliance upon apparent
authority, or he was aided in accomplishing the tort by
the existence of the agency relation.”

See also § 219, Comment e (Section 219(2) “enumerates the
situations in which a master may be liable for torts of serv-
ants acting solely for their own purposes and hence not in
the scope of employment”).

Subsection (a) addresses direct liability, where the em-
ployer acts with tortious intent, and indirect liability, where
the agent’s high rank in the company makes him or her the
employer’s alter ego. None of the parties contend Slowik’s
rank imputes liability under this principle. There is no con-
tention, furthermore, that a nondelegable duty is involved.
See § 219(2)(c). So, for our purposes here, subsections (a)
and (c) can be put aside.

Subsections (b) and (d) are possible grounds for imposing
employer liability on account of a supervisor’s acts and must
be considered. Under subsection (b), an employer is liable
when the tort is attributable to the employer’s own negli-