or servants, [corporations] must, as matter of sound public policy, be held liable for all the acts of their agents and servants who commit wrongs while performing the master's business, and in the scope of their employment; and this to the extent of liability for punitive damages in proper cases."). 20 . Embrey, 442 A.2d at 970; see also, eg., Goddard, 57 Me. at 222-23; Thorne v. Contee, 80 Md.App. 481, 565 A.2d 102, 110 (1989) ("[The tortious act of the servant done in the course of his employment is ordinarily the legal act of the master."); Gifford v. Evans, 35 Mich. App. 559, 192 NW.2d 525, 529 (1971) ("Respondeat superior provides in essence that the act of an employee during the course of his employment is legally the act of the employer."). 21 . See Embrey, 442 A.2d at 973 (<HOLDING>); see also Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v.
recognizing the financial position of the defendant as a factor in assessing a punitive damages award holding a court may not award punitive damages holding that evidence of a defendants financial condition is a prerequisite to an award of punitive damages holding that it was appropriate for trial court to award separate punitive damages awards against an employee and his vicariously liable employer because this would enable each award to be based on the two defendants differing financial status holding that punitive damages award against vicariously liable law firm was not excessive in part because the award is proportionate to the law firms financial position