a concussion that resulted in a complete loss of memory . After three months of intensive therapy, Ms. Odorable was released from the hospital. At the time of the release, Ms. Odorable's memory was partially restored . It was estimated that Ms . Odorable would need 12 - 15 months of additional out-patient therapy On September 1, 2019 , Ms . Odorable sued Le Pue SA claiming that LePue is liable based on the legal theory of vicarious liability (respondeat superior ). Is Le Pue liable for Ms . Odorable's injuries ? What is the likely result Your analysis should be in the form of an IRAC (please see below). You should explore, in detail , the arguments each party will make . For purposes of this paper , the rule of law for vicarious liability (also known as respondeat superior ) is defined as follows : Respondeat Superior (vicarious ) liability : 1. Absent direct liability , the principal's liability for the agent's torts is heavily dependent on the employee -independent contractor distinction 2. A principal is liable for the torts of agents: 1) Who are employees , and 2) Who commit the tort during the scope of their employment 1. Scope of employment 1) Act was the kind the employee was employed to perform 2) It occurred during authorized working hours , 3) It occurred at authorized location , and 4) It was motivated by the purpose of serving the employer Your analysis must be in the form of an IRAC (i.e., Issue; Rule; Application; Conclusion). If you are unfamiliar with the IRAC method , please review the sample essay (s) posted in Canvas , as well as the following IRAC sources (1) Microsoft Word - IRAC ANALYSIS-1.pdf (https ://everettcc .instructure .com /courses /1867215 /files /126931038 /download ?wrap_=1) (2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47W2gqqM54U