applied to physical torts, an employer–employee relationship must be established (novicarious liability is established for work performed as an independent contractor) and the act must be committed within the scope of employment (substantially within time and geographical limits, job description and at least with partial intent to further employer's business). Historically, the doctrine was applied in master–servant and employer–employee relationships. When an employee or a servant commits a civil wrong against a third party, the employer or master could be liable for the acts of the servant or employee when the acts are committed within the scope of the relationship. The third party could proceed against the servant and master; that is, the employee and employer. The action against the employee would be based on his conduct. The action against the employer is based on the theory of vicarious liability in which a party can be held liable for the acts of a different party. The employer–employee relationship is the most common area respondeat superior is applied, but the doctrine is also used in the agency relationship. Then, the principal becomes liable for the actions of the agent even if the principal did not commit the act. There are three considerations generally: Was the act committed within the time and space limits of the agency? Was the offense incidental to, or of the same general nature as, the responsibilities the agent is authorized to perform? Was the agent motivated to any degree to benefit the principal by committing the act? The degree to which they are answered in the affirmative dictates the degree to which the doctrine can be applied. Common law distinguishes between civil and criminal forms of respondeat superior. In US securities law In US securities law cases in which respondeat superior has been considered in which the company was not a knowing participant in the employee's fraud, the results have been mixed. In O'Brien v. Dean Witter Reynolds (D. Ariz 1984), the court, emphasizing the requirement of knowing participation, stated that an employee's knowledge could not be imputed to the employer. The court in Dakis v. Chapman (D. Cal. 1983) stressed the concept of intentional participation; liability would not attach to a firm that was merely a "conduit" for the employee's securities violations. In Parnes v. Heinold Commodities (N.D. Ill. 1983), the court described the use of respondeat superior as "bizarre" and noted that the firm itself