While Elliot was an inmate at the state-run Chillicothe Correctional Institution, he was hit in the face by Turner, a corrections officer at the institution and therefore a state employee. Elliot brought a lawsuit against the state under the doctrine of respondeat superior .

The state argued that because Turner had acted recklessly in striking Elliot, his actions were outside the scope of his employment.

Therefore, the state concluded, the court should dismiss Elliot's claim against it. Were Turner's actions outside the scope of his employment as a prison guard? Explain.

Elliot v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, 637 N.E.2d 106 (OH).