Under which situation is an employer vicariously liable for an intentional tortious act by an employee?

An employer can be held vicariously liable for an intentional tortious act by an employee when the employee's actions are closely related to their employment duties and the employer has authorized the use of force in that context. This principle stems from the doctrine of respondeat superior, which states that an employer is responsible for the actions of employees performed within the scope of their employment.

In the case where force was authorized during employment, the act is considered to be within the scope of the employee’s duties. For example, if a security guard uses reasonable force to protect property, the employer may be liable for that action, even if it strayed into the realm of intentional tort (such as assault) because the employee was acting as an agent of the employer at that moment and engaged in a task that they were entrusted to do.

Personal grievances, actions outside of work hours, or behavior compensated in unrelated circumstances do not usually fall under the employer’s liability, as those situations do not reflect actions taken within the scope of employment or with the employer's authorization.