Defendants contend that the amount awarded was excessive and shocking, such as to raise an irresistible inference that passion, prejudice or other improper influence invaded the trial. Defendants initially make this argument on the grounds that the disparity between punitive damages assessed against the “passive wrongdoer” (AGF) is too large in contrast to the amount assessed against the “active wrongdoer” (Risser). We reject this argument for many reasons. First, it assumes that AGF should not have been found liable for negligent retention of an employee. Obviously, the jury disagreed with this assessment. Second, the legal basis for assessing punitive damages on respondeat superior grounds is well-established. Plains Resources, Inc. v. Gable, 235 Kan. 580, 682 P.2d 653, 665 (1984) (<HOLDING>). In the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent deci sion,
recognizing that restatement second of torts  323 and 324a correctly state pennsylvania law recognizing kansas courts adoption of restatement second of torts  909 1977 recognizing that restatement second of torts   416 to 429 are often overlapping recognizing tentative draft of restatement second of torts  652e recognizing that kansas supreme court would accept the final draft of the restatement second of torts  652e adopted in 1977