(Second) of Agency § 228(1)(a)). In Cosgrove, the employer’s duties arose solely as the result of the employment relationship. As Frugis suggests, a school that stands in an in loco parentis relationship to a boarding student in its charge has a different relationship to the student, giving rise to a non-delegable duty to take reasonable measures to safeguard the student and ensure that its employees do not endanger or exploit the child. Frugis, supra, 177 N.J. at 268, 827 A.2d 1040. Moreover, Cosgrove was decided prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Lehmann, in which it recognized agency principles as set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Agency § 219(2)(c) and (d) as providing a basis for respondeat superior liability. Lehmann, supra, 132 N.J. at 619-23, 626 A.2d 445 (<HOLDING>). See also Entrot v. BASF Corp., 359 N.J.Super.
holding that statement is admission by partyopponent if made by partys agent or servant concerning matter within course and scope of the agency or employment and made during existence of agency or employment relationship holding that the liability of a principal or master to a third person based upon respondeat superior is purely derivative and thus a judgment on the merits for or against the agent or servant is res judicata visavis the principal or master though he was not a party to the action holding in accordance with the restatement that a master may be subject to liability for the torts of his servants acting outside the scope of their employment if the servants conduct violated a nondelegable duty of the master or the servant purported to act on behalf of the principal there was reliance upon the apparent authority or he was aided in accomplishing the tort by the existence of the agency relationship holding that employer liability could arise under the principles of restatement  2192 if 1 the employer was negligent or reckless or 2 the employee relied on the supervisors apparent authority or 3 the supervisor was aided in his harassment by the existence of the agency relationship recognizing that acts are not within the scope of employment and a master is insulated from liability under restatement  2191 where the servant was acting entirely for his own benefit