employer's premises as contemplated by his contract of employment, he is entitled to compensation for injuries received during the reasonable and anticipated use of the premises.”)). 3 . In fact, this case presents an even stronger factual basis for applying respondeat superior than did either Rodgers or Childers. As the Ninth Circuit observed in a case that held the Government vicariously liable for an off-duty serviceman’s failure to control his pet dog: Military housing presents a unique situation. Unlike employees and residents of cities and towns, the employment relationship of residents of military bases continues even during off-duty, at home hours. Lutz v. United States, 685 F.2d 1178, 1185 (9th Cir.1982). See also, Blesy v. United States, 443 F.Supp. 358, 362 (W.D.N.Y.1978) (<HOLDING>). 4 . We make no pronouncement on drunkenness
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 holding that the criminal acts committed by the defendants employees were outside of the scope of their employment and in no way advanced the interests of the defendant so that the defendant could not be held liable under a theory of respondeat superior citations omitted recognizing respondeat superior liability recognizing congresss intent to take into consideration the special characteristics of military employment when determining scope of employment for respondeat superior purposes under the ftca holding that the inquiry into whether an employee was acting within the scope of his employment depends on the respondeat superior law of the state in which the tort occurred