Respondeat superior

View more Business & Finance videos

[Latin, Let the master answer.] A common-law doctrine that makes an employer liable for the actions of an employee when the actions take place within the scope of employment.

The common-law doctrine of respondeat superior was established in seventeenth-century England to define the legal liability of an employer for the actions of an employee. The doctrine was adopted in the United States and has been a fixture of agency law. It provides a better chance for an injured party to actually recover damages, because under respondeat superior the employer is liable for the injuries caused by an employee who is working within the scope of his employment relationship.

The legal relationship between an employer and an employee is called agency. The employer is called the principal when engaging someone to act for him. The person who does the work for the employer is called the agent. The theory behind respondeat superior is that the principal controls the agent's behavior and must then assume some responsibility for the agent's actions.

An employee is an agent for her employer to the extent that the employee is authorized to act for the employer and is partially entrusted with the employer's business. The employer controls, or has a right to control, the time, place, and method of doing work. When the facts show that an employer-employee (principal-agent) relationship exists, the employer can be held responsible for the injuries caused by the employee in the course of employment.

In general, employee conduct that bears some relationship to the work will usually be considered within the scope of employment. The question whether an employee was acting within the scope of employment at the time of the event depends on the particular facts of the case. A court may consider the employee's job description or assigned duties, the time, place, and purpose of the employee's act, the extent to which the employee's actions conformed to what she was hired to do, and whether such an occurrence could reasonably have been expected.

An employee is not necessarily acting outside the scope of employment merely because she does something that she should not do. An employer cannot disclaim liability simply by showing that the employee had been directed not to do what she did. A forbidden act is within the scope of employment for purposes of respondeat superior if it is necessary to accomplish an assigned task or if it might reasonably be expected that an employee would perform it.

Relatively minor deviations from the acts necessary to do assigned work usually will not be outside the scope of employment. Personal acts such as visiting the bathroom, smoking, or getting a cup of coffee are ordinarily within the scope of employment, even though they do not directly entail work. When an employee substantially departs from the work routine by engaging in a frolic — an activity solely for the employee's benefit — the employee is not acting within the scope of her employment.

An employer is liable for harm done by the employee within the scope of employment, whether the act was accidental or reckless. The employer is even responsible for intentional wrongs if they are committed, at least in part, on the employer's behalf. For example, a bill collector who commits assault and battery to extract an overdue payment subjects the employer to legal liability.

Where the employer is someone who legally owes a duty of special care and protection, such as a common carrier (airplane, bus, passenger train), motel owner, or a hospital, the employer is usually liable to the customer or patient even if the employee acts for purely personal reasons. The theory underlying such liability is that employers should not hire dangerous people and expose the public to a risk while the employee is under the employer's supervision.

The employer may also be liable for her own actions, such as in hiring a diagnosed psychopath to be an armed guard. An employer, therefore, can be liable for her own carelessness and as a principal whose employee is an agent.

These rules do not allow the employee to evade responsibility for harm she has caused. Injured parties generally sue both the employee and employer, but because the employee usually is unable to afford to pay the amount of damages awarded in a lawsuit, the employer is the party who is more likely to pay.

See: employment law.

A legal doctrine that passes the legal responsibility for acts or omissions of an employee to the employer.

Tort law
Part of the common law series
Intentional torts
Assault Battery False imprisonment Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) Transferred intent
Property torts
Trespass (land, chattels) Conversion Detinue Replevin Trover
Defenses
Assumption of risk Comparative negligence Contributory negligence Consent Necessity Statute of limitations Self-defense Defense of others Defense of property Shopkeeper's privilege
Negligence
Duty of care Standard of care Proximate cause Res ipsa loquitur Calculus of negligence Rescue doctrine Duty to rescue Specific types Negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) Employment-related Entrustment Malpractice (legal, medical)
Liability torts
Product liability Quasi-tort Ultrahazardous activity
Nuisance
Public nuisance Rylands v. Fletcher
Dignitary torts
Defamation Invasion of privacy False light Breach of confidence Abuse of process Malicious prosecution Alienation of affections Seduction
Economic torts
Fraud Tortious interference Conspiracy Restraint of trade
Liability, remedies
Last clear chance Eggshell skull Vicarious liability Volenti non fit injuria Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Neutral reportage Damages Injunction Torts and conflict of laws Joint and several liability Comparative responsibility Market share liability
Duty to visitors
Trespassers Licensees Invitees Attractive nuisance
Other common law areas
Contracts Criminal law Evidence Property Wills, trusts and estates
Portals
Law
v t e

Respondeat superior (Latin: "let the master answer"; plural: respondeant superiores) is a legal doctrine which states that, in many circumstances, an employer is responsible for the actions of employees performed within the course of their employment.^[1] This rule is also called the "Master-Servant Rule", recognized in both common law and civil law jurisdictions.^[2]

In a broader scope, respondeat superior is based upon the concept of vicarious liability.

Contents 1 In common law 2 In international law 3 See also 4 References

In common law

When applied to physical torts, an employer/employee relationship must be established (meaning that no vicarious liability is established for work performed as an independent contractor) and the act must be committed within the scope of employment (i.e., substantially within time and geographical limits, job description and at least with partial intent to further employer's business).

Historically, this doctrine was applied in master/servant and employer/employee relationships. When an employee or servant commits a civil wrong against a third party, the master or employer may be liable for the acts of the servant or employee when those acts are committed within the scope of the relationship. The third party could proceed against both the servant/employee and master/employer. The action against the servant/employee would be based upon the direct responsibility of the servant/employee for his conduct. The action against the master/employer is based upon the theory of vicarious liability, by which one party can be held liable for the acts of another.

Employer/employee relationships are the most common area wherein respondeat superior is applied, but the doctrine is also used in the agency relationship. In this relationship, the principal becomes liable for the actions of the agent, even if the principal did not directly commit the act. There are three considerations generally:

1. Was the act committed within the time and space limits of the agency?
2. Was the offense incidental to, or of the same general nature as, the responsibilities the agent is authorized to perform?
3. Was the agent motivated to any degree to benefit the principal by committing the act?

The degree to which these 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 international law

At issue in the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal following the Allied occupation of Nazi Germany after World War II was a question concerning principles closely related to respondeat superior, which came to be known by the term command responsibility. The Nuremberg trials established that persons cannot use the defense that they were only following the orders of their superiors, if that order violates international norms but especially that superiors that ordered, or "should have known," of such violations yet failed to intervene are also criminally liable.

See also

• Frolic and detour
• Qui facit per alium facit per se
• Superior Orders
• Vicarious liability

References

1. ^ Harger, Lloyd. "Workers' Compensation, A Brief History". Florida Department of Financial Services. http://www.fldfs.com/wc/history.html. Retrieved 22 June 2010. 
2. ^ Owen, Ralph Dornfeld. "Tort Liability in German School Law". Law and Contemporary Problems (Duke University School of Law) 20 (1): 72–79. JSTOR 1190275. 

Look up respondeat superior in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

• Harvard Law Study Material on Tort (includes Respondeat Superior)
• Respondeat Superior

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)