explaining that New York’s “scope of employment” test “has come to be ‘whether the act was done while the servant was doing his master’s work, no matter how irregularly, or with what disregard of instructions’” (emphasis added) (quoting Baker v. Allen & Arnink Auto Renting Co., 131 N.E. 551, 552 (N.Y. 1921))
How later courts described this case
- explaining that New York’s “scope of employment” test “has come to be ‘whether the act was done while the servant was doing his master’s work, no matter how irregularly, or with what disregard of instructions’” (emphasis added) (quoting Baker v. Allen & Arnink Auto Renting Co., 131 N.E. 551, 552 (N.Y. 1921))
- stating the test is "whether the act was done while the servant was doing his master's work, no matter how irregularly, or with what disregard of instructions" (internal quotations and citation omitted)
- stating that where the tortious conduct is a natural incident of employment, it can be generally foreseeable
- concluding that "it suffices that the tortious conduct be a natural incident of the employment"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Jones, J.
(concurring). I concur in result in this case but cannot accept what appears to me to be the overbreadth of the majority opinion, addressing as it does matters which are not necessary for the resolution of this appeal.
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Gabrielli and Wachtler concur with Judge Fuchsberg; Judge Jones concurs in result in a separate memorandum; Judge Jasen dissents and votes to affirm for the reasons stated in the concurring memorandum by Mr. Justice Vincent A. Lupiano at the Appellate Division ( 63 AD2d 593 ).
Order reversed, with costs, and the case remitted to the Appellate Division, First Department, for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion herein.