But consider a different scenario. Assume that, after hours of driving, John Smith stops off at bar and gets in a fight, injury one of the bar patrons. In this situation, Smith’s employer would probably not be liable for these injuries. The difference between these two scenarios is that, in the first, driving a van is in the ‘course and scope’ of Smith’s employee. The bar fight, however, was not part of his employment duties.
But, consider a third scenario. Assume that John Smith has a history of repeatedly injuring people in bars while on rest stops while driving the company van. If it can be proven that Giant Van Moving Company knew of Smith’s dangerous propensity, then it could be held liable for injuries inflicted by Smith during bar fights. Here, the theory of liability is based on the Giant Van’s deliberately exposing members of the public to known harm.