B. [§ 3.197] Scope of Employment

• Jurisdiction: Maryland

B. [§ 3.197] Scope of Employment

The most important issue of proof in a case involving respondeat superior is whether the employee/agent was acting within the scope of employment. See generally Lovelace v. Anderson, 366 Md. 690, 785 A.2d 726 (2001). "[T]o be within the scope of employment, the conduct of the employee must be of a kind the actor is employed to perform, occur during a period not unreasonably disconnected from the authorized period of employment, in a locality not unreasonably distant from the authorized area, and actuated at least in part by a purpose to serve the master." Dhanraj v. Potomac Electric Power Co., 62 Md. App. 94, 98, 488 A.2d 512, 514 (1985), aff'd, 305 Md. 623, 506 A.2d 224 (1986) (citation omitted); see also Chinwuba v. Larsen, 142 Md. App. 327, 790 A.2d 83 (2002), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 377 Md. 92, 832 A.2d 193 (2003) (discussing factors to consider when determining scope of employment and specificity required for pleading); Nero v. Mosby, 890 F.3d 106, 126 (4th Cir. 2018) (citing Larsen v. Chinwuba, 377 Md. 92 (2003) ). Felland L.P. v. Digi-Tel Commc'ns, 384 Md. 520, 864 A.2d 1027 (2004) , contains a thorough discussion and analysis of whether an employee's wrongful acts were within the scope of employment thereby rendering the employer liable...