Mahar v. StoneWood Transportation

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 2003 · Corporations

823 A.2d 540 (2003)

Updated August 22, 2026

Corporationsvicarious liabilityscope of employmentnegligent supervisionagencysummary judgmentrespondeat superiorRestatement (Second) of Agency § 228

Facts

StoneWood, a New Brunswick trucking company, periodically retained Frederick Linfield to provide transportation services. While driving east on Route 9 in December 1998, Linfield stopped his flatbed truck to block the road, exited with a pipe, and approached the Mahars' car in a threatening manner while yelling obscenities. After moving his truck, he followed the Mahars closely for about fifty miles until a police officer stopped him. StoneWood had previously received complaints about Linfield's driving, but those complaints involved dangerous driving rather than violence.

Issue

Whether StoneWood could be held liable on summary judgment for negligent supervision or vicariously liable for Linfield's assaultive and threatening conduct. The case also asked whether liability could arise under Restatement (Second) of Agency § 219(2)(d) and whether the award of costs was proper.

Rule

Maine has not recognized an independent tort of negligent supervision, and even if such a tort were recognized, liability would require facts supporting foreseeability of the employee's harmful conduct. Under Restatement (Second) of Agency § 228, conduct is within the scope of employment only if it is of the kind the servant is employed to perform, occurs substantially within authorized time and space limits, is actuated at least in part by a purpose to serve the master, and, if force is intentionally used, the force is not unexpectable by the master. Serious intentional criminal wrongdoing undertaken for personal reasons is outside the scope of employment, and § 219(2)(d) does not apply here absent conduct within apparent authority or involving misrepresentation or deceit.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

North Harbor Logistics sent its driver, Evan Mercer, on a scheduled freight run from Portland to Augusta. After another motorist honked at him in traffic, Evan pulled onto the shoulder, grabbed a tire iron from the cab, and struck the motorist's car door while shouting threats.

If the motorist sues North Harbor Logistics on a respondeat superior theory, which is the strongest argument for the company under the controlling rule?

Explanation. Under Restatement (Second) of Agency § 228 as applied by the majority, serious intentional criminal wrongdoing undertaken for personal reasons is outside the scope of employment. Even if the employee is on duty and using a work vehicle, respondeat superior does not apply when the conduct is different in kind from assigned work and not actuated by a purpose to serve the employer.