Also known as:scope of employment · within the scope of his employment · within the scope of employment · course of employment
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Conduct of a servant that is of the kind the servant is employed to perform, occurs substantially within authorized time and space limits, and is actuated at least in part by a purpose to serve the master. An act remains inside the scope even if performed in a forbidden manner or by an improper method when the servant is still attempting to accomplish an authorized work result.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Supervisor Clears Jam Without Lockout
Carla, a line supervisor at Metro Plastics, bypassed a mandatory lockout procedure to clear a jammed conveyor during her shift. She reached into the running machine to restore production quickly. Luis, a temporary worker, suffered a crushed arm when the machine malfunctioned. The court treats Carla's conduct as within the scope because she was performing her assigned supervisory task of keeping the line running, even though she used a prohibited method.
Injured Foreman Needs First Aid
Harry, a site foreman at Elm Framing, was hurt while moving rebar on the job. His supervisors knew he was helpless at the site but failed to provide first aid. The court holds Elm Framing liable because Harry's injury occurred while he was acting within the scope of his employment and the company had a duty to care for him until others could assist.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Model Codes
Restatements
Hornbooks
Secret Service Agents Protect Children
Federal agents assigned to protect the minor children of a former president followed and photographed a persistent photographer near the family. The photographer sued the agents for interference. The court finds the agents acted within the scope of their employment because their protective actions were part of their official duties, entitling them to immunity.
Galella v. Onassis487 F.2d 986, 992, 998-999 (2d Cir. 1973)
Senator's Aide Handles Documents
A senator's legislative aide arranged for republication of classified materials as part of the senator's official duties. A grand jury sought to question the aide about those arrangements. The court limits the inquiry because the aide's actions occurred within the scope of his employment and are protected by legislative immunity.
Gravel v. United States408 U.S. 606 (1972)
Therapist Warns of Patient Threat
A university therapist learned that a patient planned to kill a specific person. The therapist's supervisors knew of the threat but took no steps to warn the intended victim. The court holds the university liable because the therapist's failure to warn occurred while acting within the scope of his employment as a campus mental-health provider.
Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California551 P.2d 334, 342 (Cal. 1976)
Manager Creates Hostile Workplace
A credit union manager repeatedly harassed an employee with racial slurs and demeaning assignments during work hours. The employee sued the credit union under federal civil-rights law. The court treats the manager's conduct as within the scope of employment because it occurred while performing managerial duties and created the conditions of employment.
Patterson v. McLean Credit Union491 U.S. 164 (1989)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
4
Does violating a company safety rule automatically take an employee's conduct outside the scope of employment?+
No. An employee remains within the scope when using an abnormal or forbidden method to achieve an authorized work result. The key inquiry is whether the employee was still trying to accomplish an assigned task, even if the chosen means were careless or prohibited.
When is an employer vicariously liable for a managerial employee's risky decisions made to meet deadlines?+
An employer is liable when it had reason to expect that the employee might pursue the employer's business by risky methods. Knowledge of the employee's pattern of cutting corners makes the deviation foreseeable and therefore incidental to the authorized work.
Is notice to an agent acting within the scope of employment imputed to the principal?+
Yes. Notice given to an authorized agent while performing duties within the scope of employment constitutes notice to the principal, even if the principal's other employees never see the information.
Does post-dissolution conduct by a partner bind the partnership when third parties lack notice?+
Yes. A partner's act that would have bound the partnership before dissolution still binds it afterward if the third party reasonably lacks notice of the dissolution and the act is of the kind the partner previously performed.
551 P.2d 334, 342 (Cal. 1976)Torts
…provides that a public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment if the act or omission would give rise to a cause of action against that employee. The public entity may also be held liable under Government Code section 815.6 for failure to discharge a…
Business Associations RelationshipsVicarious liability of principal for acts of agent · Vicarious liability of principal for acts of agentNEXTGENIntermediate