Stephen was employed as a sales representative for a Mitsubishi car dealership. Reba, age eighteen, met with Stephen to test drive a Mitsubishi pickup truck. During the test drive, Stephen assaulted Reba “by touching and grabbing her about her arms, hands, groin area, and breasts. He also . . . exposed his genitals and placed her hand on his private parts.” When they returned from the test drive, Stephen took her to the Mitsubishi service department and “again exposed himself and tried to force her to touch him.” Reba was able to free herself and left the dealership. Stephen was later convicted on charges arising out of the incident. Reba sued both Stephen and the car dealership, claiming that she had suffered severe emotional distress as a result of the assault. The trial court granted the dealership’s motion for summary judgment and entered a default judgment against Stephen. Reba appealed, arguing that the dealership should be held liable for Stephen’s torts under the doctrine of respondeat superior. What should the appellate court decide?
