Opinion by
Justice SCOTTConcurring in Part and Dissenting in Part.
Although I agree that summary judgment was proper on Gary McCoy’s claims against the franchisor, Papa John’s International, Inc., the majority goes too far in insulating employers from liability for intentional torts committed by their employees. Thus, I write separately to address the malicious prosecution claim against RWT, Inc. In my view, summary judgment on that claim was improper because there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Wendell Burke, the delivery driver, was acting within the scope of his employment with RWT at the time of the reporting of the matter. Remember it was the false reporting of the incident that McCoy alleges caused the injury.
At the heart of this matter is the initiation by Burke of an allegedly false criminal charge against McCoy. This act was the basis for the malicious prosecution claim against RWT on a theory of vicarious liability. It is well-settled that RWT can be held vicariously liable if Burke committed the tort in the scope of his employment with RWT. See Patterson v. Blair, 172 S.W.3d 361, 366 (Ky.2005) (noting that an employer’s liability is limited only to those employee actions committed in the scope of employment). “Scope of employ*57ment” is a flexible concept. Although this Court recently held in Patterson that the focus is on the employee’s motive for his tortuous conduct, at various times it has been stressed that an employer can be vicariously liable for conduct of an employee that was (1) done in furtherance of the employer’s business or at least partly motivated by an intention to serve the employer; (2) of the kind that the employee was employed to perform; (8) substantially within the authorized “time and space” limits of the employment; or (4) expectable in view of the employee’s duties. Booker v. GTE.net LLC, 350 F.3d 515, 518-19 (6th Cir.2003) (applying Kentucky law).
As an initial matter, I note that RWT is not necessarily relieved of vicarious liability for malicious prosecution solely because it is an intentional tort. There are numerous decisions finding employers vicariously liable for the intentional torts of their employees. See, e.g., Patterson, 172 S.W.3d at 363 (holding that a car dealership could be held vicariously liable for the intentional tort of its employee, who shot out the tires of the plaintiff’s truck during a repossession attempt); Frederick v. Collins, 378 S.W.2d 617 (Ky.1964) (holding a store vicariously liable for wrongful death when its employee shot and killed a customer); Dennert v. Dee, 308 Ky. 687, 215 S.W.2d 575 (1948) (holding the proprietors of a saloon vicariously liable for a bouncer’s assault and battery of a patron); Fournier v. Churchill Downs-Latonia, 292 Ky. 215, 166 S.W.2d 38 (1942) (holding a racetrack vicariously hable when its security guard assaulted the plaintiff with a club); J.J. Newberry Co. v. Judd, 259 Ky. 309, 82 S.W.2d 359 (1935) (holding a store vicariously hable when its assistant manager falsely imprisoned the plaintiff). These cases correctly concluded that an employee’s intentional tort can be within the scope of his employment. This occurs when the intentional conduct is closely related to the employment. Booker, 350 F.3d at 518.
In this matter, there is evidence that Burke was acting within the scope of his employment at the time the unlawful imprisonment charge, which was based on events that allegedly occurred on the job, was filed. After stating that he had been held captive against his will at McCoy’s office, Burke told his coworkers that he did not want to call the police, nor press charges. Despite this, Burke’s supervisors recommended that the police be called and actually made the call. RWT management even provided a written statement to the police. It was primarily those managers, not Burke, who wanted the charge brought against McCoy. Burke only did so at the advice and direction of RWT, his employer. These facts, which tend to show that RWT was not just a mere bystander to the tort, are sufficient to preclude summary judgment. See Paintsville Hosp. Co. v. Rose, 683 S.W.2d 255, 256 (Ky.1985) (“[Summary judgment] is only proper where the movant shows that the adverse party could not prevail under any circumstances.”).
While I believe without a doubt that the scope of employment issue should be for the jury to decide, I do not mean to suggest that McCoy will necessarily prevail against RWT on his malicious prosecution claim. I do, however, believe that the present case should proceed on the merits, regardless of the anticipated outcome, because RWT entangled itself in the controversy between Burke and McCoy by making its reporting an employment-related matter. I therefore dissent.