Taranto v. North Slope Borough

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that, in scope-of-employment inquiry, “even where the facts are undisputed, when ‘conflicting inferences can be drawn from undisputed facts’ the question is properly left to the jury”
• discussing our adoption of the Restatement (Second) of Agency rules for an employer's vicarious liability for intentional torts of employees
• Under respondeat superior, \an employer will be held liable for both negligent and intentional torts of its employee.\
• “[A] municipality is vicariously liable for the actions of its employees, agents, and officers under the traditional tort principle of respondeat superior.”
• \[T]he liability of a municipality for the negligent acts and omissions of its representatives will be governed by traditional tort principles.\ (quoting Busby v. Municipality of Anchorage, 741 P.2d 230, 232 (Alaska 1987))
• \[S]cope of employment is a fact-specific issue requiring case-by-case determination.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).