Not always equitable

I'll admit it - I like my career.  I like being a lawyer [insert bad joke here].  For the most part, the law is about being equitable and fair.  Even when I was doing personal injury defense, the goal wasn't to keep some poor worker from getting money; it was making sure that everything was fair.  That said, if your accident was your fault, then you shouldn't get anything.  (oh, another little secret, I kinda miss going out on the ships and meeting the various crewmembers.  Apparently, there typically aren't any real estate emergencies like that.) 

Anyway, most times, the goal of the law is to put things right or the way that they should have been (i.e., I tear down your house, I should have to rebuild your house and put you up in a hotel while it is being built).  But, this just topic just hit me the wrong way --- employer-employee liability.  When should an employer be held liable for the intentional acts of his employees?  On this topic, the law does not seem consistent or always fair.  Here are a few examples:

A.    I get into an accident with a bus driver who is on duty and driving the bus.  While exchanging information, he hits me.  Is the bus company liable? 

B.    Door man at the new hip club tells two men that they aren't allowed in yet.  During the discussion, the doorman hits one of the men.  Is the club liable?

C.   Employee of XY Enterprises meets to sell me stock in the company.  I agree to purchase.  Employee says that we need to complete the transaction at a later date because he doesn't have the right stock certificates.  When we meet, he sells me stock in XY Inc. (his own side company that is worthless).  Is XY Enterprises liable? 

D.  Employee sues company for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on conduct of supervisor?  Is the employer liable for the supervisor's conduct? 

Let me know what you think.  These are all real cases.  I'll post what the courts have decided in the next day or so...