398 F.2d 167 (2d Cir. 1968)
Ira S. Bushey & Sons, Inc.
Whether, in admiralty, the United States is vicariously liable under respondeat superior for property damage caused by a drunken Coast Guard seaman who, while returning to his vessel in drydock, intentionally tampered with the drydock's controls, even though his act was not motivated by any purpose to serve his employer.
Under maritime law, an employer is vicariously liable for an employee's torts when the employee's conduct is within the scope of employment understood in enterprise-risk terms: the question is whether the employee's act was a foreseeable, characteristic, or broadly incidental risk of the enterprise—not whether the act was motivated by a purpose to serve the employer. Scope of employment in admiralty encompasses conduct occurring in authorized time and space limits and arising from risks fairly attributable to the business, so long as the conduct is not so unforeseeable or extraordinary that holding the employer liable would be unjust.
Yes. The United States is vicariously liable. The risk that a seaman, returning to his vessel while it is in a private drydock, might become intoxicated and tamper with the drydock or vessel in a way that causes damage is a foreseeable incident of operating a vessel in that setting. The district court's judgment for the United States was reversed.
Bushey is a foundational case for the modern, foreseeability-based conception of scope of employment. It teaches that motivation to serve the employer is neither necessary nor sufficient for vicarious liability; instead, courts focus on whether the risk is fairly attributable to the enterprise. The case is central in torts and agency courses for its articulation of enterprise liability, its pragmatic treatment of foreseeability, and its bridging of common-law and admiralty principles. It is frequently cited for the proposition that employers may be liable for intentional or reckless acts that, while not serving the employer, are nonetheless a foreseeable byproduct of placing employees in particular settings.