to the contrary. “Generally, sexual assaults and batteries by employees are held to be outside the scope of an employee’s employment and, therefore, insufficient to impose vicarious liability on the employer.” Nazareth v. Herndon Ambulance Serv., Inc., 467 So.2d 1076, 1078 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). Unless it can be established that the abuse occurred in furtherance of the employer’s business, this type of conduct is not within the scope of employment. Agriturf Mgmt., Inc. v. Roe, 656 So.2d 954 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (finding abuse occurring on Agriturfs property during time perpetrator closing business not within scope of employment because sexual abuse not in furtherance of employer’s business objectives); see Mason v. Fla. Sheriffs’ Self-Ins. Fund, 699 So.2d 268 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (<HOLDING>). The second count is based on purported
holding as a matter of law that a police officer was not acting within the scope of his employment when assaulting an acquaintance of a woman he had detained holding that defendant in punching a police officer in the back and in causing the officer to fall to the ground by jumping on him had not caused sufficient injury to warrant a thirddegree assault charge holding that scope of employment was an issue for the jury where a chicago police officer was off duty but within the city limits when he shot the plaintiff recognizing affirmative duty of a police officer to prevent the violation of constitutional rights by another officer holding sexual assault by officer not within scope of employment even though officer on duty in uniform and serving warrant on woman he raped