It makes sense, from the concept: “an employee’s wrongful conduct is
within the ordinary course or scope of employment if it is authorized by
the employer; or an unauthorized mode of doing something that is, in fact,
authorized by the employer” (DuPlessis) .Therefore, vicarious liability
does not require that an employer be held for all acts of the employee,
but just in reasonable area.
However, it can be argued what's an unauthorized “mode” of performing
an authorized act; even the employees can make use of its employment and
do the wrongful act intentionally which may result in the employer to
suffer the cost. At this time, the vicarious liability law seems to be
practical to prevent the tortious act but not particular just.
On the other hand, vicarious liability put pressure on the employers.
Employers have to make clearly job descriptions, check backgrounds or
references of the employees, and interview applicants before they make
the final decision. These procedures not only can help themselves reduce
the risks associated with vicarious liability and negligent hiring but
also can create a safe environment for the employees.
Just take a simple example, if the University hire a professor with
criminal backgrounds or may have some psychological problems; one day the
teacher took the gun to the school and shot the students. At this time,
the University has to be liable for the