This ruling makes some sense to me. It is perfectly normal for a court to hold that an employer liable for the damages its employee causes while acting within the scope of the employer's duties. I am sure there are hundreds of cases where the employer has been held liable for the damages caused when an employee runs a stop sign.
However, it's worth noting that the employer, while liable, is only secondarily liable. The employee is primarily liable. Thus, here, if the US has to pay the plaintiff, it should be able to recover that payment from Janklow.
I remember reading something a while back that a Police Officer can be sued personally in civil court for what he does on the job. How would that apply to this?
Would an active duty serviceman (on duty 24/7) get the same treatment under the same circumstances? I doubt it.