RULE- Intentional Tort- the a_ct was done on purpose, not necessarily with the intention of causing harm. The main question here is, did you intend the action? Not if you intended the harm. Examples, assault (the threat of imminent violence) battery (actual physical contact and not necessarily harmful contact) nuisance (Public Nuisance-Interference with use of public facilities. Private nuisance-interference with occupier's use and enjoyment of property and ddifcult to weigh competing legal uses of property) and defamation (a published false statement of fact which injures another's reputation, the defenceswould be truth, absolute privilege, qualied privilege and rresponsible communication on matters of public interest) and lastly false imprisonment (Intentional restraint without legal justication, however, physical constraint is not required since it can be mental as well. Also, Threat of embarrassment can be enough. There is another piece worth mentioning under false imprisonment which is, Malicious Prosecution (Causing criminal prosecution without honest belief that a crime was committed. Also, under the Tort law, assault doesn't have to be physical, as long as there is creation of apprehension of harm. Also, assault requires reasonableness but battery doesn't. Under the doctrine of vicarious liability, an employer may be held liable for the negligent actions of an employee if the employee was acting within the scope of their employment at the time of the accident. Debra Fairweather, a fashionable college student, went shopping for bargains on Boxing Day with her mother. As Debra walked through the front doors of Stylz Ladies Boutique, an alarm was set off. Deb turned around to nd two older women, whom she assumed were security guards, looking at her suspiciously. Deb continued shopping with her mother, but neither found anything to buy. The store knew that shopliers would try to return stolen merchandise to the store to illegally obtain a cash refund or a store credit. As they were leaving the store the alarm again sounded as Deb went through the front doors. After she and her mother reached the sidewalk, the two older ladies who were indeed acting as security guards for the store approached Deb. One of the ladies touched Deb lightly on the shoulder and the other asked Deb to return to the store. Deb believed she had no choice. As she walked back into the Stylz, the alarm once again went off. One of the ladies then instructed Deb to pass through the security door without her jacket. The alarm did not sound. 0n inspection, one of the security guards located a Stylz security tag, which triggers the door alarm, inside the jacket's sleeves. Deb told the store manager that she purchased the jacket last week and decided to wear it today because of the weather. The store manager then conscated the tag wrote down Debs name and address and told Deb that she could take her jacket and leave. Does Deb have a claim for an intentional tort against the store