Maria Millan opened two brokerage accounts at Dean Witter Reynolds. The broker for both accounts was her son Miguel, an employee of Dean Witter. Over the course of the next three years, Miguel systematically looted his mother’s account, ultimately stealing from her more than $287,000. He stole checks from his mother’s bathroom drawer, wrote checks on his mother’s account, deposited his mother’s checks into his own account, forged his mother’s signature on numerous occasions, stole statements from her mailbox, created and sent bogus statements to his mother, and opened a post office box so he could receive his mother’s actual statements. Dean Witter did not verify Millan’s signature, as policy required. A Dean Witter supervisor also did not verify a check in the amount of $35,000, which was against Dean Witter written policy. Millan sues her son and Dean Witter for unauthorized transactions, negligence, and gross negligence. Under a theory of direct liability, who is a jury likely to find for? Under the doctrine of respondent superior, is Dean Witter vicariously liable for the actions of Miguel? (Hint: Think about whether Miguel’s actions were within his general scope of authority as a broker.)