Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Lane was a seaman for the United States Coast Guard (D). He was coming home to his ship from leave one night, and opened a valve controlling the flooding of the drylock tanks. Lane was drunk. As a result, both his ship and part of the drylock sank into the water. The owner of the drylock, Ira S. Bushey & Sons, Inc. (P) sued D for damages. The District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted P compensation. D appealed, claiming that it is not liable since Lane's acts were not within the scope of his employment. D relied on section 228 (1) of the Restatement of Agency 2d, which stated that 'conduct of a servant is within the scope of employment if, but only if:...it is actuated, at least in part by a purpose to serve the master.' However, the district judge denied D's appeal, claiming that the doctrine of liability should be expanded to serve the larger purposes respondeat superior is supposed to serve. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.