of the accident, had been negligent in his supervision of the driver. The boat owner was also the driver’s employer, but at that time they were on a weekend outing that was not work-related. The Tillman court approved the use of § 213 only as the basis of a jury instruction on negligently supervising an activity. However, because the court embraced all of § 213 with approval and the other negligence principles of § 213 are closely analogous to that of negligent supervision of an activity, we think the court would apply them as well in an appropriate case. In fact, prior to Tillman the court had already approved a theory of recovery based on an employer’s negligent failure to train or regulate its employees. See Gamble ex rel. Gamble v. Dollar Gen. Corp., 852 So.2d 5, 14 (Miss.2003) (<HOLDING>). The comments under § 213 deal with the
holding that a failure to adequately train will only result in  1983 liability where that failure amounts to a deliberate indifference to the rights of persons with whom the police come into contact holding that the hospital failed to show how it was harmed by failure to verify the rule to show cause holding that the failure to file a proper motion to dismiss raising a constitutional challenge to a criminal statute waives the issue on appeal holding that bjased on dollar generals failure to show any training provided to its employee other than handing her a manual it was proper to allow the jury to consider the issue of negligence for dollar generals failure to train its employee holding that it was improper for the trial court to instruct the jury that it could not consider the states failure to videotape the defendant