home from the adjoining lot and to contact the fire department if they saw any indication of fire. It was undisputed that the guards had permission to enter the property adjoining the Clarks’ land and that they were not authorized to enter th elves and did not attempt to do so, so shooting the dog could not have been done to prevent the dog from revealing the guards’ presence. Oklahoma courts have repeatedly endorsed the general rule that an agent’s tortious or criminal assault on a third party cannot be considered within the scope of the agent’s authority, unless the assault could have been “anticipated by the employer” as a foreseeable means of accomplishing the job for which the agent was employed. See, e.g., Allison v. Gilmore, Gardner & Kirk, Inc., 350 P.2d 287, 290-92 (Okla.1960) (<HOLDING>); Tulsa General, 288 P.2d at 753 (holding that
holding county employee with unenforceable contract was atwill employee holding that where employee gave notice to employer of injury and employer told employee that nothing could be done for him through workmans compensation employer had breached statute and was liable for medical treatment which was reasonable and necessary to restore employee to maximum usefulness holding injured employee who asked his employer for medical assistance and employer refused and employee then went to physician of his own choice employee could recover medical benefits holding that employer was not liable when employee got into a fight with a third party who challenged the way the employee was doing his job holding that employee was not precluded from bringing separate employment discrimination action against employer where employee was not a party to consent decree entered into between eeoc and employer employee had rejected consent decree and had received no relief under decree