Aaron Smith, a junior at Yale, was a counselor at Camp Winipesaukee for the summer of 2007. Several of the children, ages 8-12 reported to their parents that they had been physically assaulted by Aaron while they were at camp. The children had signs of

bruising and other injuries. The parents brought suit against Camp W, the corporation that operated the camp for their children's injuries. Camp W says that it is not liable because (a) it had no knowledge of the assaults; (b) Aaron had not injured anyone in the past; and (c) what Aaron did was not within his scope of employment as a camp counselor. Discuss the liability and defense issues in the case.

Students should discuss the difference between torts in the scope of employment and intentional torts. Ordinarily, employers are not responsible for the intentional torts, criminal acts of employees unless:
1. The employer had knowledge.

2. The employer did not adequately address the background check of the individual.

Here there is no indication that Aaron had a problem. However, the likely sensitive nature of the job as well as the fact that it happened to more than one child will find Camp W liable for its lack of supervision.