Remember it was the false reporting of the incident that McCoy alleges caused the injury. At the heart of this matter is the initiation by Burke of an allegedly false criminal charge against McCoy. This act was the basis for the malicious prosecution claim against RWT on a theory of vicarious liability. It is well-settled that RWT can be held vicariously liable if Burke committed the tort in the scope of his employment with RWT. See Patterson v. Blair, 172 S.W.3d 361, 366 (Ky.2005) (noting that an employer’s liability is limited only to those employee actions committed in the scope of employment). “Scope of employ ment” is a flexible concept. Although this Court recently held in Patterson that the focus is on the employee’s motive for his tortuous conduct, at various times it has (<HOLDING>); Dennert v. Dee, 308 Ky. 687, 215 S.W.2d 575
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 plaintiffs failure to prove decedents death was caused by the wrongful acts of the defendant precludes any recovery of wrongful death damages under mississippis wrongful death statute holding a store vicariously liable for wrongful death when its employee shot and killed a customer holding corporation vicariously liable for assault on customer by assistant manager as customer was engaged in trying to settle a controversy concerning a portion of defendants business recognizing cause of action for wrongful death