Respondeat superior
Respondeat superior is a US legal doctrine which states that, in many circumstances, an employer is responsible for the actions of employees performed within the course of their employment. This rule is also called the master-servant rule, recognized in both common law and civil law jurisdictions.
Full Answer
What is a respondeat superior claim?
A legal doctrine, most commonly used in tort, that holds an employer or principal legally responsible for the wrongful acts of an employee or agent, if such acts occur within the scope of the employment or agency. Typically when respondeat superior is invoked, a plaintiff will look to hold both the employer and the employee liable.
What is the law of respondeat superior?
Respondeat Superior. The Latin term respondeat superior, which translates as “let the master answer,” refers to a legal doctrine in which an employer may be held responsible for the actions of his employees, when the actions are performed “in the course of employment.” In order for respondeat superior to apply,...
What is arespondeat superior?
Respondeat Superior. Overview. A legal doctrine, most commonly used in tort, that holds an employer or principal legally responsible for the wrongful acts of an employee or agent, if such acts occur within the scope of the employment or agency.
What happens when respondeat superior is invoked?
Typically when respondeat superior is invoked, a plaintiff will look to hold both the employer and the employee liable. As such, a court will generally look to the doctrine of joint and several liability when assigning damages .
What is the difference between law of agency and respondeat superior?
B. Agency law distinguishes between two basic types of agents: servants (including all employees) and independent contractors. Respondeat superior normally applies only to servants. A servant is an agent who is subject to the control of the principal (called a master).
Why is respondeat superior imposed by the law?
The purpose of California's respondeat superior law To prevent recurrence of the wrongful conduct; To give greater assurance of compensation for the victim; and. To ensure that the victim's losses will be borne by those who benefit from the enterprise that gave rise to the injury.
What is the doctrine of respondeat superior what is it based on?
respondeat superior, (Latin: “that the master must answer”) in Anglo-American common law, the legal doctrine according to which an employer is responsible for the actions of its employees performed during the course of their employment.
What does respondeat superior apply to?
Respondeat Superior applies in cases where the plaintiff proves three things: The injury occurred while the defendant was working for the employer. The defendant was acting within the scope of her employment. The defendant was performing an act in furtherance of the employer's interest.
Is respondeat superior common law?
Respondeat Superior is a Latin phrase that means- Let the master answer. This is a common-law doctrine that holds an employer legally liable for the actions of an employee when the actions take place within the scope of employment and under the supervision of the employer.
Who is responsible under respondeat superior?
employerRespondeat superior embodies the general rule that an employer is responsible for the negligent acts or omissions of its employees. Under respondeat superior an employer is liable for the negligent act or omission of any employee acting within the course and scope of his employment (1).
What does doctrine respondeat superior mean and state one example of the doctrine?
Mo. 1993)]. The following is an example of a case law on the doctrine: The respondeat superior doctrine provides that an employer is subject to liability for torts committed by employees while acting within the scope of their employment.
What does the doctrine of respondeat superior mean quizlet?
doctrine of respondeat superior. A principle of agency whereby a principal is held responsible for the negligent acts of an agent acting within the scope of the agency (e.g., an employer is liable for the negligence of an employee); also called vicarious liability.
Where did respondeat superior originate?
The doctrine of respondeat superior dates back to 17th century England, where the law held a master or employer legally liable for the actions of his servant or employee. This association only applied to acts done in the course of the servant or employee’s duties, or at the direction of the employer. This provided a more reliable way ...
Who is responsible for Sally's actions?
Not only might Sally’s employer be held responsible for Sally’s actions, which were committed while she was on duty and in the scope of her employment, but the employer may be held liable for carelessly or negligently hiring an individual who has a history of abusing patients.
What does "let the master answer" mean?
The Latin term respondeat superior, which translates as “let the master answer,” refers to a legal doctrine in which an employer may be held responsible for the actions of his employees, when the actions are performed “in the course of employment.”. In order for respondeat superior to apply, ...
What is a civil lawsuit?
Civil Lawsuit – A lawsuit brought about in court when one person claims to have suffered a loss due to the actions of another person. Damages – A monetary award in compensation for a financial loss, loss of or damage to personal or real property, or an injury.
What is a plaintiff in a lawsuit?
Plaintiff – A person who brings a legal action against another person or entity, such as in a civil lawsuit, or criminal proceedings.
What is a defendant in a lawsuit?
Defendant – A party against whom a la has been filed in civil court, or who has been accused of, or charged with, a crime or offense.
Is an employer liable for negligent or intentional acts?
The decision on whether the employer can be held li able for an employee’s intentional act depends on whether that act was committed within the scope and course ...
What is respondeat superior?
The doctrine of ‘Respondeat Superior’ is a Latin maxim, which means ‘Let the master answer’ . This legal maxim makes an employer responsible for the actions of their employee when the actions take place within the scope of employment. An employer is made responsible or accountable by transferring the liability upon the employer. This doctrine is not only beneficial for the employee as it shifts the liability upon the employer, but also for the injured party as it is believed that the employer is in a better position to pay the damages than the employee. This maxim emphasizes on ‘superior-subordinate’ or ‘master-servant’ relationship. For the application of this maxim, it is necessary to establish such ‘superior-subordinate’ relationship between the employee and the employer on whose instructions the employee acted.
When a servant is acting in the course of the business, the master will be liable?
Principal takeaway: When a servant is acting in the course of the business, the master will be liable, even if the servant was acting for his own benefit, rather than that of the master.
What determines the Employee and Employer relationship?
An act is said to be done in the course of employment when it is a wrongful act authorized by the master or a wrongful and unauthorized way of doing some act authorized by the master. But in order to understand the liability in such cases, we must dive deeper into what establishes such a relation. Certain tests have evolved to help determine this relation. In the current times, the ‘hire and fire’ test has gained importance. It establishes whether an employer is in a position to hire and fire his employee. If he does possess such authority, he would be held liable for the acts done by his employee. Another test that has become extinct now is the ‘control test’. The case of Cassidy v. Ministry of Health [iii] can be referred to while studying the control test. In this case, the court was of the opinion the control test checks whether the employer actually controls what his employee does and how he does it.
What is vicarious liability?
Vicarious liability is the kind of liability that imposes the liability upon a person who did not actually cause the injury but has a legal relationship with the person who in reality caused the injury. Such legal relationships could be that of a parent and child, employer and employee, master and servant, etc. It is a type of secondary liability and is also referred to as ‘imputed negligence’ at times. Vicarious liability binds the master for the acts of his servant which are done in course of employment. Vicarious liability has been evolving with the help of judges but the common notion underlying such liability is that the employer, under whose instructions the employee committed the act, has far better financial capacity than the employee to pay the damages. Two important legal maxims revolve around the concept of vicarious liability. One is ‘Qui Facit Per Alium Facit Per Se’ and the other is ‘Respondeat Superior’.
What is the focal point of civil law?
Liability forms the focal point of Civil Law. According to Salmond, ‘liability is the bond of necessity that exists between the wrongdoer and the remedy of the wrong’. Liability is often bifurcated into various kinds. In civil proceedings, liability can be regarded as the enforcement of the right of the plaintiff against the defendant. Usually, Civil liability is categorized as a remedial liability. It is based upon the Latin maxim ‘ubi jus ibiremedium’ which means ‘when there is a right there must be some remedy’. It is called remedial because it aims and focuses on protecting the right/s of the plaintiff instead of merely punishing the wrongdoer. In Criminal liability, the wrongdoer must pay penalties or follow the punishment as prescribed by the law via courts acting as its agent. This kind of liability is referred to as penal liability. It predominantly aims at punishing the wrongdoer.
What is the principle of servants?
Principle takeaway: The servant has an implied authority to protect the property of his master. Use of excessive force to carry on this duty during the course of the employment would make the employer liable.
Who is liable for negligent conduct?
Principal takeaway: In cases where a servant is negligent while performing his duties and his conduct causes any loss to a third party, the employer would be liable for his negligent conduct and loss to the third party.
Overview
- A legal doctrine, most commonly used in tort, that holds an employer or principal legally responsible for the wrongful acts of an employee or agent, if such acts occur within the scope of the employment or agency. Typically when respondeat superior is invoked, a plaintiff will look to hold both the employer and the employee liable. As such, a court...
Jurisdictional Differences
- There is not a national standard for respondeat suprerior. Because states create their own standards for the doctrine, different jurisdictions will use different tests to prove respondeat superior. However, most jurisdictions will use 1 of the following 2 tests: 1. Benefits Test 1.1. When the employee’s social or recreational pursuits on the employer’s premis…
Strict Liability Comparison
- A court will choose to apply the doctrine of respondeat superior to an employer, regardless of how closely the employer was monitoring the employee. As such, respondeatsuperior may be compared with strict liability.
Exceptions
- Independent Contractors
Respondeat superior applies to employees, but not to independent contractors. The Third Restatement of Torts helps to outline the difference between an employee and an independent contractor for the purpose of respondeat superior. It presents a fairly thorough balancing test: 1… - Federal employees
Under the Westfall Act, federal employees will not be held liable for wrongdoings committed during the scope of their employment.
Further Reading
- For more on the doctrine of respondeat superior, please see this Santa Clara Law Review article, this Michigan Law Review article, and this Louisiana Law Review article.
Definition
- The Latin term respondeat superior, which translates as let the master answer, refers to a legal doctrine in which an employer may be held responsible for the actions of his employees, when the actions are performed in the course of employment. In order for respondeat superior to apply, there must be a clear employee-employer relationship establish...
Early history
- The doctrine of respondeat superior dates back to 17th century England, where the law held a master or employer legally liable for the actions of his servant or employee. This association only applied to acts done in the course of the servant or employees duties, or at the direction of the employer. This provided a more reliable way for people to recover damages for a wrongful act, a…
Issue
- Although it is relatively easy to determine employer liability for an employees actions during the course of employment, the issue of intentional acts, which may be criminal in nature, is less clear. Many employers believe that any criminal acts committed by an employee, whether he is on or off the clock, are the sole responsibility of that employee. This issue is not black-and-white, howeve…
Plot
- Steve is employed as a security guard at a large, and very busy, pawn shop. Steves job is to walk around the shop, creating a presence to reduce theft. A customer starts an argument with Steve, and is ushered out the door by another security guard. Steve, however, becomes angry and follows the man out into the parking lot, and punches him, and then a fight ensues. Several days …
Impact
- In such a case, the law does not allow the employee to escape justice by holding her employer solely responsible. Rather, both Sally and her employer are likely to face legal consequences. Both may be subject to civil liability by the filing of a civil lawsuit, and Sally may face criminal charges for her actions.
Facts
- On Christmas Eve 1987, Stephen Belcastro left his companys party drunk, and attempted to drive home. Belcastro lost control of his car, which traveled into oncoming traffic, and crashed into a car occupied by Charles Sayles, who was seriously injured. Because Belcastro had become drunk taking advantage of alcoholic beverages provided by his employer at the company-sponsored p…
Significance
- On appeal, that judgment was overturned, when the appellate court ruled that Belcastro had been acting outside the scope of his job duties when he caused the accident, and that the employer could not be held responsible. Sayles then appealed the matter to the Virginia Supreme Court, which saw the case differently. The Court made the point that attendance at the company party …