stand against the principal or employer on the basis of vicarious liability or respon-deat superior. See Williams v. Hines, 80 Fla. 690, 86 So. 695, 699 (1920) (where a jury by its verdict exonerates the servant but finds the master guilty, the verdict as to the master is erroneous.); Buettner v. Cellular One, Inc., 700 So.2d 48 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (when principal’s liability rests solely on respondeat superior, principal cannot be liable if agent is exonerated); See also, e.g., Rothman, M.D., P.A. v. Hebebrand, 720 So.2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (physician’s professional association, which defaulted, could not be held liable for malpractice, where association’s liability was only vicarious and jury found in favor of physician); Keyes Co. v. Sens, 382 So.2d 1273, 1275 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (<HOLDING>). According to the allegations contained in
holding that rochez did not foreclose respondeat superior liability for brokerdealers for the fraudulent acts of their employees 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 holding that defendant  whose liability for the acts of its employees was vicarious based on respondeat superior  was not subject to a verdict or judgment for compensatory damages in excess of the amount of damage determined and found against its defendantemployees the active tortfeasors holding that employees violation of his employers policy against drinking on the job does not preclude liability under respondeat superior