What can lead to an employer being liable for an employee's intentional torts?

The correct option indicates that an employer can be held liable for an employee’s intentional tort if the employee is authorized to use force in self-defense. This principle is rooted in the theory of vicarious liability, whereby an employer can be responsible for the actions of an employee performed within the scope of their employment.

When an employee is explicitly authorized to use force, even in situations involving self-defense, the actions taken are often viewed as being carried out in connection with their employment duties. This empowerment to act can create a direct link between the employer and the intentional tort, thus making the employer liable. The rationale here is that the employer has control over and endorses the employee's authority to take certain actions that may lead to tortious conduct.

In contrast, the other options present scenarios that do not establish such a direct connection. For instance, a wrongful act committed during employment must be within the scope of employment and closely related to the employee’s duties for liability to attach. Simply being negligent does not negate the requirement for the act to be in the course of employment. Disobeying instructions generally undermines the notion of acting within the scope of employment, further distancing the employer’s liability from the employee’s conduct. Therefore, only in specific instances where