Can an employer be held liable for failing to prevent an employee from committing acts of sexual assault on another employee?

Though the principal is required to anticipate any reasonable probable happening, the tort herein complained of was one which under ordinary circumstances could not have been anticipated, consequently the defendant should not be held liable. Wiersma v. City of Long Beach, supra, 41 Cal.App.2d at page 15, 106 P.2d at page 49. I doubt if anyone has ever before seen such an act as the one done here.

Page 756

'Courts have held as a matter of law that an employee at the time of the tortious conduct in question was not acting within the scope of his employment when the evidence clearly showed a complete abandonment thereof. * * * Similarly, * * * where the evidence clearly discloses, and is susceptible of but the single conclusion, that the employee's wrongful act was committed 'in and as a part of' the employer's business, the court should so decide as a matter of law.' Fields v. Sanders, 29 Cal.2d 834, 842, 843, 180 P.2d 684, 690, 172 A.L.R. 525.