281 (1968). Such an ac knowledgment is not an admission that the employee was in fact negligent. 6 . Seventy percent of fault was assessed to the driver of the passenger vehicle and ten percent of fault to the plaintiff. Id at 825. 7 . State supreme courts that follow this rule include: Maryland (Houlihan, 78 A.2d at 665); California (Armente, 267 P.2d at 309); Missouri (McHaffie, 891 S.W.2d at 826); Arkansas (Elrod v. G & R Const. Co., . 815, 463 S.E.2d 358, 360-61 (1995) (affirming summary judgment on plaintiff’s direct negligence claims against employer because employer’s admission of liability under respondeat superior rendered direct negligence claims "unnecessary and irrelevant’’); Gant v. L.U. Transp., Inc., 331 Ill.App.3d 924, 264 Ill.Dec. 459, 770 N.E.2d 1155, 1160 (2002) (<HOLDING>); Rodgers v. McFarland, 402 S.W.2d 208, 210
recognizing respondeat superior liability holding that a plaintiffs direct negligence claims against an employer are not precluded by the employers admission of respondeat superior liability holding that the doctrine of respondeat superior in maryland allows an employer to be held vicariously liable for the tortious conduct of its employee when that employee was acting within the scope of the employment relationship citations omitted holding that where employer acknowledges respondeat superior liability for the conduct of its employee direct negligence claims become duplicative holding governmental entity liable for malicious harassment of its employee under doctrine of respondeat superior