With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of Colo., Div. of Youth Services, 17 F.3d 1323, 1330 (10th Cir.1994). The Court will address each of these bases for liability in turn. 1. Scope of Employment Restatement § 229 provides a general definition of “scope of employment”, stating that “[t]o be within the scope of employment, conduct must be of the same general nature as that authorized, or incidental to the conduct authorized.” The comments to the Restatement provide further explanation of the meaning of “scope of employment”: “Proof that the actor was in the general employment of the 18 (10th Cir.1987) (“sexual harassment simply is not within the job description of any supervisor or any other worker in any reputable business”) (citation omitted); Sparks v. Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc., 830 F.2d 1554, 1559 (11th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). Although the effect is to restrict

A: recognizing that acts are not within the scope of employment and a master is insulated from liability under restatement  2191 where the servant was acting entirely for his own benefit
B: holding that restatement  2191 is inapplicable to alleged sexual harassment by a supervisor was sexual harassment within the scope of antonis employment of course not
C: holding that both agent and principal will be liable when the agent acts within the scope of his employment but for his own purposes
D: holding that the liability of a principal or master to a third person based upon respondeat superior is purely derivative and thus a judgment on the merits for or against the agent or servant is res judicata visavis the principal or master though he was not a party to the action
A.