After an hour of shopping at a Wal-Mart store, which is owned by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Wal-Mart), Michael Burlarley and his wife proceeded to the checkout. The cashier, joking with the couple in an effort to make her work shift "go a little faster," pretended to ring up items for vastly more than their price and threw various items at Michael. Michael, not amused, told her to stop, and the cashier initially complied. When Michael turned away, however, the cashier threw a bag containing a pair of shoes and shampoo at him, striking Michael in the face. Michael sued Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., to recover damages. Wal-Mart filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that the cashier's actions were personally motivated and that Wal-Mart was not liable under the state's motivation test. The trial court granted summary judgment to Wal-Mart. Michael appealed.

Do you agree with the court's ruling in this cases? Why or why not?