Abel was employed as a security guard for Seep Corporation. Abel's job was to guard a fenced-in area and to use force to keep intruders from climbing the fence to enter the plant. His working hours were from 8:00 A. M. to 5:00 P. M. At about 11:00 P. M. one evening, Abel drove past his place of employment. He saw a teenager named Johnny climbing the outside of the fence that he guarded during the day. Angered by this violation of Seep's property rights and by the fact that Johnny had called him a "potbellied moron" only three days earlier, Abel stopped his car, ran up to the fence, pulled Johnny off of it, and beat him up. Johnny sues Seep Corporation for Abel's assault and battery (both intentional torts). Which of the following is most likely to be the court's verdict? Group of answer choices

B. Seep's is not liable because Abel didn't act within the scope of his employment.

Explanation:

According to the facts, Abel is a rightful employee of Seep Corporation. And he also has a duty to preserve the interest of his employer.

But at the same time, his act of beating up and assaulting Johnny was done outside of the jurisdiction of his working hours. And as such, he wasn't covered in the company's rule of using "force to keep intruders from climbing the fence to enter the plant". Moreover, the personal attack that Johnny had done on him makes this assault personal. So, Abel's attack on Johnny has nothing to do with the company he works for, and the Corporation is not liable for any charges or damages that their employee had done outside of his 'employment' hours.

Thus, the correct answer is option B.

answer:

polo g isn't a blood he lives in chicago

explanation:

so he ain't no blood