O’REGAN J [42] However, it is important in considering this case to record that nearly half the court dissented (the court split 6:5) and the minority held that ─ “The officer was also within the ‘scope of employment’ even as narrowly defined by the court. The officer was authorized to travel to a training session in New Mexico. During his return trip, he was receiving per diem and mileage. He was authorized to drive his assigned police car with red lights affixed on top. He testified that he thought it part of his duties to offer a stranded motorist a ride. Ms. Primeaux testified that Officer Scott approached her and turned on his red lights on the police vehicle. The district court found all of these facts to be true. To hold that Officer Scott, under these circumstances, was not acting within the scope of his employment is inexplicable.”55 (footnotes and emphasis omitted) The decision was accordingly highly fact sensitive and there was a powerful dissent signed by nearly half the members of the court which must weaken its persuasiveness to us. Moreover, the facts of the case are distinguishable from the facts of the present case, particularly in view of the fact that the police officer was neither formally on duty, nor in uniform. Its persuasiveness is weakened, too, by the fact that it is clear that the provisions of the United States federal legislation are not directly comparable to our own rules. I cannot accept therefore that the respondent’s reliance on this case can be dispositive of the case before us. [43] This brief review illustrates that the problem of the vicarious liability of employers for sexual assaults committed by employees is one which is faced by legal systems in some other parts of the world. Courts have grappled with the need to 55 Id at 887. 31