of the firefighters, this Court stated: “The vicarious liability of a putative master under the rule of respondeat superior depends upon the liability of the putative servant. See Larry Terry Contractors, Inc. v. Bogle, 404 So.2d 613, 614 (Ala.1981) (‘“[W]hen [a] principal and his agent are sued in [a] joint action in tort for misfeasance or malfeasance of the servant, and his liability for the conduct of said servant is under the rule of respondeat superior, a verdict in favor of the servant entitles the master to have the verdict against him set aside.” ’) (quoting Louisville & N.R.R. v. Maddox, 236 Ala. 594, 600, 183 So. 849, 853 (1938)), and Gore v. City of Hoover, 559 So.2d 163, 165 (Ala.1990), overruled on other grounds, Franklin v. City of Huntsville, 670 So.2d 848 (Ala.1995) (<HOLDING>). Thus, if a putative servant is not liable,
recognizing that a judge is not absolutely immune from criminal liability holding that a car dealership could be held vicariously liable for the intentional tort of its employee who shot out the tires of the plaintiffs truck during a repossession attempt holding that a city could not be held vicariously liable for the act of a magistrate who was immune from liability holding that a city may not be held liable under  1983 where there was no underlying constitutional violation by any of its officers holding that a hospital was not vicariously liable for sexual abuse by an orderly