What type of torts are principals liable for when committed within the scope of employment?

The concept of vicarious liability is fundamental to understanding the liability of principals for torts committed by their agents or employees within the scope of employment. When an employee commits a tort during the performance of their job duties, the employer (or principal) may be held liable for those actions.

Intentional torts, which include acts like assault, battery, and false imprisonment, may still fall under the purview of vicarious liability if they are closely connected to the employee's work or motivated by an intention to further the employer's interests. For example, if an employee assaults a customer during a confrontation at work, the employer could potentially be held liable for that intentional tort because the act occurred within the course of employment.

This contrasts with negligent torts, which involve a failure to exercise reasonable care, and while employers can also be liable for negligent acts of their employees, the question specifically addresses intentional acts. Criminal torts are usually prosecuted by the state, and although there might be situations where employers can face consequences for criminal actions of employees under certain circumstances, this isn't typically seen as direct liability in the same way as intentional torts committed within the scope of employment.

Therefore, the correct understanding of the liability of principals towards intentional torts committed