no real purpose,” unnecessarily expends the “energy and time of courts and litigants,” and risks the introduction of potentially inflammatory, irrelevant evidence into the record. Id. The court also explained that once an employer concedes it is vicariously liable for any negligence of its employee, the employer becomes strictly liable to the plaintiff for damages attributable to the employee’s conduct, regardless of the percentage of fault as between the employer and the employee. Id. ¶25 Several state supreme courts have adopted the rule articulated in McHaffie, and numerous intermediate appellate courts and federal district courts in other jurisdic tions have applied the McHaffie rule as well. But see, e.g., James v. Kelly Trucking Co., 377 S.C. 628, 661 S.E.2d 329, 332 (2008) (<HOLDING>). Although this case presents an issue of first
holding that where employer acknowledges respondeat superior liability for the conduct of its employee direct negligence claims become duplicative holding that employees violation of his employers policy against drinking on the job does not preclude liability under respondeat superior holding that a plaintiffs direct negligence claims against an employer are not precluded by the employers admission of respondeat superior liability holding that employees defamatory statements made at work about matters relating to work were within the scope of their employment for purposes of respondeat superior and recognizing that californias respondeat superior doctrine imposes a broad rule of liability on employers recognizing respondeat superior liability