## Facts

- Eugene Howard, a regular patron, entered Zaney Bar in the early morning hours and interacted with a female customer.
- Howard admitted he “made some passes” at the woman.
- The bartender objected to Howard’s manner of speaking and asked if Howard was “looking for trouble”; Howard replied he was not.
- The bartender reached under the counter, produced a pistol, and shot Howard; the bullet injured Howard’s finger and neck.
- The bartender also fired at another person nearby.
- Howard sued the bar owner in trespass seeking damages for serious injuries caused by the bartender.

## Issues

1. Whether the bartender’s shooting of Howard was within the scope of the bartender’s employment such that the bar owner was vicariously liable under respondeat superior.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the trial court’s entry of judgment notwithstanding the verdict for the bar owner.
- The court held the bartender was not acting within the scope of employment when he shot Howard.
- Because the shooting was outside the scope of employment, the bar owner could not be held vicariously liable for the bartender’s act.

## Legal Principles

- A bar or taproom owner has a duty to keep the premises orderly and reasonably policed and may satisfy that duty by employing staff to maintain order.
- An employee charged with maintaining order acts within the scope of employment when using reasonable means to secure order and, in doing so, furthers the employer’s business.
- In some circumstances, an employer may remain liable when an employee, while acting within the scope of assigned duties, uses unreasonable means.
- Respondeat superior does not apply where the employee’s conduct constitutes a complete departure from the scope of employment rather than an excessive method of performing assigned duties.
- A shooting prompted by a patron’s advances toward another customer, rather than a measure to maintain order, can be treated as a personal, extreme act outside the scope of employment.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that the bartender’s use of a firearm in response to Howard’s conduct toward a female customer was a departure from any authorized effort to maintain order, so the bar owner was not vicariously liable and judgment n.o.v. for the defendant was properly affirmed.


Howard v. Zaney Bar, 85 A.2d 401 (Pa. 1952)