holding -4- that armed security guard who removed unruly bar patron and shot him in the parking lot was within the scope of his employment despite the fact that the shooting was "entirely unnecessary to any legitimate purpose of [his] employment" because the confrontation was initiated to serve his employer's interests and escalated "with unbroken continuity" to the shooting
How later courts described this case
- holding -4- that armed security guard who removed unruly bar patron and shot him in the parking lot was within the scope of his employment despite the fact that the shooting was "entirely unnecessary to any legitimate purpose of [his] employment" because the confrontation was initiated to serve his employer's interests and escalated "with unbroken continuity" to the shooting
- holding that armed security guard who removed unruly bar patron and shot him in the parking lot was within the scope of his employment despite the fact that the shooting was “entirely unnecessary to any legitimate purpose of [his] employment” because the confrontation was initiated to serve his employer’s interests and escalated “with unbroken continuity” to the shooting
- security guard shot an unruly bar patron for removing a drinking glass
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ON PETITIONS FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM.
The petitions for rehearing are
DENIED.
BOYER, C. J., and RAWLS, J., concur.
SMITH, J., concurs with separate opinion.