## Facts

- Tommie Lee Patterson traded a Camaro to Courtesy Autoplex for a 1995 GMC Jimmy and represented the Camaro loan payoff as $9,500, but the actual payoff was $12,402.82.
- Courtesy let Patterson take the Jimmy before verifying the payoff and did not transfer title; Patterson agreed to pay any additional payoff amount.
- After the bank confirmed the higher payoff, Patterson refused to pay the difference and refused to return the Jimmy.
- Courtesy made at least two unsuccessful attempts to repossess the Jimmy.
- Blair Jr., a Courtesy employee/manager, located Patterson driving the Jimmy and confronted him at a stoplight, demanding that he exit the vehicle.
- When Patterson refused, Blair Jr. fired two shots into a front tire and two shots into a rear tire of the Jimmy.
- Patterson alleged Blair Jr. then climbed onto the running board, tried to strike him, and pointed a gun at his head; Patterson drove to the police station and reported the incident.
- A jury awarded Patterson $42,465.18 and found Courtesy vicariously liable; the trial court denied a punitive-damages instruction.
- The Kentucky Court of Appeals (split) held Blair Jr. acted outside the scope of employment and reversed vicarious liability; the Kentucky Supreme Court granted review limited to the vicarious-liability question.

## Issues

1. Whether Blair Jr.’s intentional tortious conduct during an attempted repossession was within the scope of his employment, making Courtesy vicariously liable under respondeat superior.
2. What test governs scope of employment for intentional torts, including whether the analysis turns on an objective nexus to authorized work rather than solely on the employee’s subjective motive.

## Decision

- The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the jury verdict holding Courtesy vicariously liable.
- The Court held the jury could reasonably find Blair Jr. acted within the scope of employment while attempting to recover dealership property and protect Courtesy’s financial interests.
- The Court concluded that using excessive or unauthorized force, even potentially criminal conduct, does not automatically place the act outside the scope when it arises from and is closely connected to assigned duties.

## Legal Principles

- An employee acts within the scope of employment when conduct is of the same general nature as authorized, or incidental to authorized conduct, and occurs in the ordinary course of the employer’s business.
- An employer may be vicariously liable for an employee’s intentional tort if the tort is connected to the employment enterprise and committed, at least in part, to further the employer’s business.
- The scope-of-employment inquiry centers on the nexus between the employee’s act and the employer’s business; lack of authorization as to method or degree, standing alone, is not dispositive.
- Vicarious liability does not attach when the employee’s tort is purely personal and unrelated to the employer’s business.

## Conclusion

The court held that an employee’s violent, unauthorized repossession attempt could still fall within the scope of employment where it arose from a business dispute and was closely connected to assigned work, so the dealership was properly held vicariously liable under respondeat superior.


Patterson v. Blair, 172 S.W.3d 361 (Ky. 2005)