please brief this case with IRAC format. (issue, rule, application and conclusion. )please write which ones is issue, rule, application and conclusion.

P. 36-11 Chapter Thirty-Six Third-Party Relations of the Principal and the Agent 36-11 truck. The employee would be within the scope of employ- In the Corvo case, which follows, the court determines ment even if another reason for his speeding was to finish that intentional torts committed by employees were outside work quickly so he could watch his daughter's soccer game. the scope of their employment. Synergies3 Tec Services, LLC v. Corvo 2020 WL 4913636 (Ala. Aug. 21, 2020) Lisa Corvo and Thomas Bonds were engaged to be married. They had gotten engaged in Parts without an engagement ring. When they returned to the United States, they purchased a specially made ring in the shape of the Eiffel Tower with a diamond mounted on it. The diamond cost $40.000. Sometime thereafter Corvo contacted DIRECTV to initiate satellite tele house. On February 20, 2013, Corvo and Bands were working from home lation. Bonds let both men Inside the house, advised them where to install the equ . while Castro and Mclaughlin were still working on the installation, Corvo and Bonds experienced a tion in their Internet access, and, as a result, Bonds went to check with Castro and McLaughlin, Corvo noticed that the door to the master bedr he thought was strange. Thus, she opened It which startled Mclaughlin, who was standing behind the door When the installation w mplete. Castro provided Corvo and Bonds with a lengthy overview of the services. Corvo and Bonds finished paperwork associated with the installation, and Castro left. After Castro left, Corvo went to the master bedroom to retrieve her handbag, Jewelry, and shoes, and she noticed that the three-carat dia- mond was missing from the center of her engagement ring. The prongs on the ring were sticking out and were bent. Corvo and Bonds sued McLaughlin, Castro, DIRECTV, and Synergies Tee Services (Synergies3)-which was the company contracted by DIRECTV to install services and which employed McLaughlin and Castro)-asserting claims of come A jury awarded Corvo and Bonds $365,160 in damages, Induding mental anguish and punitive damages. DIRECTV and Synergless appealed the verdict on a number of grounds, including that the jury erroneously applied the doctrine of respondeat superior to hold them vicariously liable for the actions of McLaughlin and Castro. STEWART, Justice as a matter of law on Corvo and Bonds's claim alleging respons Synergies3 and DIRECTV . . . argue that a judgment as a matter deat superior liability. In support of their argument. Synergies3 of law should have been entered as to Corvo and Bonds's claim and DIRECTV cite Hendley v. Springhill Memorial Hospital, 575 alleging vicarious liability under the doctrine of resp So. 2d 547 (Ala. 1990). Hargrove v. Tree of Life Christian Day Care rior. An employer may be held vicariously liable for the intentional Center, 699 So. 2d 1242 (Ala 1997), and Conner v. Magic City tort of its employee or agent if the plaintiff produces s Trucking Service, Inc, 592 So. 2d 1048 (Ala. 1992). evidence showing "that [1 ] the ag acts were in the In Hendley, a patient sued a hospital alleging that [a worker] scope of his employment: or [2] that the acts were in furtherance who maintained medical equipment for the hospital performed of the business of [ the employer ]: or [3] that [ the employer] par- an unauthorized ination on the patient. The scope ticipated in, authorized, or ratified the wrongful acts." Potts v. BE & of the [worker's] employment was limited to tending to certain K Constro, 604 So. 2d 398, 400 (Ala. 1992) (quoting Joyner v. electronic me devices used in the hospital. In affirming the AAA Cooper Transp, 477 So. 2d 364, 365 (Ala. 1985)). summary judgment in favor of the hospital. this Court held that the hospital could not be held liable, under the doctrine of respons The employer is vicariously liable for acts of its employee that deat superior, for the [worker's] alleged unauthorized vaginal ex- were done for the employer's benefit, Le, acts done in the amination of the patient because that conduct was "such a gross line and scope of employment or for acts done for the fur- deviation from the purpose for which [ the worker) was in [ the therance of the employer's interest. The employer is directly patient's] room (monitoring her [medical device])." 575 So. 2d liable for its own conduct if it authorizes or participates in the employee's acts or ratifies the employee's conduct after it at $51. learns of the action. In Hargrove, two day-care-center employees and their younger sister kidnapped the plaintiffs' child from the day-care center Forms, 604 So. 2d at 400. because one of the sisters wanted a child of her own. This court Synergies3 and DIRECTV argue that the act of stealing from affirmed the summary judgment entered against the plaintiffs on customers of DIRECTV is such a marked and unusual deviation their claims against the day care center based on vicarious liabil from Synergies3 and DIRECTV's business of providing satellite ity. holding that the sisters' "apparent plot . . . constituted, as a television service that they should have been granted a judgment matter of law, a gross deviation" from the business of the day carep. 36-12 36-12 Part Eight Agency Law center. 699 So. 2d at 1246. In Hargrove, however, it was undis a tendency either directly or by reasonable inference to show puted that "there was nothing that should have, or could have. that the wrong was committed while the [employee ] was exe- put . . . the [day-care ] [clenter on notice that the sisters would or cuting the duties assigned to him. might kidnap one of the children." Id. Meyer v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. 813 So, 2d 832, 834-35 (Ala. In Magic City Trucking, an employee of a trucking company. which was subcontracted by the plaintiff's employer, chased the 2001) [internal quotation and citations omitted]. The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Corvo and plaintiff with a snake and eventually threw the make on the plaintiff Bonds, the nonmov s. indicates that Castro and McLaughlin while the two were working in the . . . scope of their went to Corvo's house to install DIRECTV's equipment. After their respective employers. The plaintiff sued the trucking company based on the theory of respondent superior, but the trial court en- Castro and McLaughlin left the house, the diamond from Corvo's tered a directed verdict . . . in favor of the trucking company. 592 So. ent ring and $160 in cash were missing, A default judy- 2d at 1049, In affirming ment was entered against Castro and Mclaughlin on Corvo and ent, this Court held that the trucking co marked and onversion claims against them. Theft and con- unusual deviation from the business of [the trucking company ]. It version are a "marked and unusual deviation" from the business cannot be said that [the employee's] poor practical joke was in fur- ergies3 and DIRECTV for which Castro and McLaughlin therance of [ the trucking company's ] business. Therefore, it was not were in Corvo's house- ment for DIRECTV's sat- within the scope of his employment." 592 So. 2d at 1050. ellite television service. Furthermore, there was no evidence indi- This Court, however, has recognized: cating that the theft or conver as done for SynergiesJ's or DIRECTV's benefit or in furtherance of their interests. Moreover. In order to recover against a defendant under the doctrine of there is no evidence mergies3 or DIRECTV au- respondeat superior, the plaintiff must establish the status of thorized or participated in theft and conversion or later ratified [employer and employee] and that the act done was within the conduct so as to give rise to any direct liability for theft or the . . . scope of the (employee's] employment. This rule conversion. Based on those circumstances, there was no factual applies even where the wrong complained of was intentionally. dispute regarding Synergies3's and DIRECTV's vicarious or di willfully, or maliciously done in such a manne authorize rect liability for Castro's and McLaughlin's actions that required a recovery for punitive damages. In extending the liability to a resolution by the jury: accordingly, the trial court should have willful wrong. the motive behind the act does not defeat liabil entered a judgment as a matter of law in favor of Synergies3 and ty, unless it can be shown that the [employee] acted from DIRECTV on Corvo and Bonds's claims asserting liability based wholly personal motives having no relation to the business of on the doctrine of respondent superior the [employer]. Whether the [employee ] was actuated solely by personal motives or by the interests of his employer is a question for the jury. This is so if there is any evidence having Reversed in part; and remanded with Instructions. Ethics and Compliance in Action Principal's Liability for Agent's Torts . Do you think respondent superior makes employers liable for too many acts of their employees? Does the rule discourage We have covered the reasons the law makes some businesses from using employees? Does any discour- employers liable for the torts of employees under respondeal agement affect both pros ers and prospective superior, including the ability of employers to bear the burden employees? or to socialize the cost of paying for damages caused by an Do you think the law should make employers liable for all employee's fort. the torts of their employees? Do you think it is right for an employer to pay for all dam- Do you think those are good reasons to make someone ages caused to others by the tort of an employee? When liable for the actions of another person? What kind of forming your answers, consider the ethical theories we cov- behavior is the rule of respondeat superior likely to foster? ered in Chapter 4. Does the rule encourage employers to train and supervise . What are compliance steps that an employer should take to their employees better? avoid respondeat superior liability