Put the following paragraph in IRAC Format

Employers are liable for the tortious act of an employee when the act was "in furtherance of the employer's business." (CITE TO JOHNSON CASE at page 28) "In furtherance of" has generally been interpreted to mean that the employee's conduct was in some way related to the employer's business.(CITE TO SMITH CASE at page 163) In Johnson, the defendant owned a landscaping business.His employee injured the plaintiff when he ran over her with the lawn mower that he was using to cut the plaintiff's lawn. At the time of the incident, the employee was listening to music through his headphones, even though this was prohibited by company policy.(CITE TO JOHNSON CASE at page 26).Otherwise, however, he was engaged in the job that he was hired to perform.(CITE TO JOHNSON CASE at page 26)."When the employee is generally performing his assigned duties, even if there is some slight digression from the employer's instructions, the employer will be held liable for the employee's negligent torts."(CITE TO SMITH CASE at page 164). Accordingly, our client will probably not be held liable for her employee's tort.By contrast to Johnson, the plaintiff suing our client was injured by an employee whose wrongful conduct was completely unrelated to his employment.The employee in question left work early, without permission, and was driving home in his own car, texting his friends, when he hit and injured the plaintiff.It seems unlikely that this behavior would be considered "in some way related to the employer's business."(CITE TO SMITH CASE at 163)In determining an employer's liability for a negligent tort committed by an employee, Connecticut courts must decide whether the employee's conduct was to the employer's benefit.