RegardingIra S. Bushey & Sons, Inc. v. United States :

How did Judge Friendly address the issue of whether Seaman Lane's inebriated mischief in turning the drydock water intake valves came within or outside the general vicarious liability rule requiring that an employee be within the course and scope of the employment as well as having the requisite motive . . . or "purpose to serve the master," as stated in Rest. Agency 2d, Section 228(1)(c)? What modification to the general rule does he impose in this case?