VII). Like Primeaux II, in the present case, we need not decide outh Dakota. See Brown, 949 F.2d at 1012 n. 7 (“[u]nder the FTCA, the law of the place of the alleged tort governs the scope-of-employment question”). Under South Dakota law, the scope of employment inquiry is based upon a foreseeability test that evaluates whether a sufficient nexus exists “between the agent's employment and the activity which actually caused the injury.” Leafgreen v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 393 N.W.2d 275, 280 (S.D.1986) (Leafgreen). In addition, South Dakota has adopted the Restatement (Second) of Agency (1958), including § 229, which focuses on the relationship of the employee’s conduct to the employer’s business. See Deuchar v. Foland Ranch, Inc., 410 N.W.2d 177, 180 (S.D.1987) (Deuchar) (<HOLDING>). The Restatement also provides a list of
holding that south dakota is guided by the principles articulated in the restatement second of agency including  229 holding that duty existed as a matter of public policy independent of the restatement recognizing cases where courts have considered the restatement approach as persuasive but declined to clearly articulate a rule adopting the restatement approach regarding restatement third of property mortgages  76 1997 recognizing tentative draft of restatement second of torts  652e recognizing kansas courts adoption of restatement second of torts  909 1977