What is the definition of doctrine of respondeat superior?
It is a Latin term which means "Let the master speak." In legal proceedings it is the idea that employees are simply agents of the employer, and the employer is accountable for the acts of his employees. Therefore, he must explain, justify, or defend the acts, rather than the employee. Unless it is demonstrated that the employee was deliberately disregarding the directions of the employer, the employer, not the employee, will be held to account for any harm that comes as a result of the acts of the employee. In a dental setting, if a dental assistant were to injure a patient during a procedure, and the assistant and dentist were hauled into court in a lawsuit, the assistant's attorney (yes, the employee should always have their own counsel) would claim "respondeat superior". The assistant was only acting on the direction of the dentist, and therefore it is the dentist that is responsible for the injury.
While it may sound like the assistant has just thrown her boss under the bus, in legal terms, she is stating that she was not acting in an irresponsible way, and she was not free to ignore the direction of the dentist. The dentist, with his greater training and knowledge, is in a much better position to describe what happened and explain why it was not malpractice.
Respondeat superior Read More
pharmacist Read More
Actually, the employee must be sued in order for the respondeat superior doctrine to apply. Respondeat superior doctrine only imposes liability on the principal for tortuous acts committed by the agent; the agent must therefore be found guilty of having committed the tort before any liability can be assigned to the principal. S.C., Paralegal Sciences Major, Kaplan University. Read More
What factors are considered in determining whether a particular act is subject to Respondeat Superior?
What factors are considered in determining whether a particular act is subject to Respondeat Superior? Read More
You are referring to the doctrine of Respondeat Superior, where a principle may be liable for the actions of his/her agent. The answer is, it depends on the action, the employment arrangement, and local law. Read More
Direct liability is holding the actor responsible for his or her own actions. Respondeat superior liability is holding an employer responsible for an employee's actions. Read More
No, the theory of Respondent Superior makes the employer responsible for what the employees do while at work. It is Latin for 'let the master answer.' Read More
res ipsa loquitur - the thing (matter ) explains itself. It is self evident. respondeat [superior]: let [the master] answer - the employer is liable for the actions of an employee Read More
Respondeat Superior rule states that Principle (Employer) is liable for all the unauthorized acts of the agent (employee) performed within the course of his employment. Read More
"Let (the) superior respond" is an English equivalent of the Latin phrase Respondeat superior. The phrase most famously references the liability of an employer for wrongful actions within the scope of an employee's job position. The pronunciation will be "res-PON-dey-at SOO-pey-ree-or" in Church and classical Latin. Read More
Vicarious liability or "respondeat superior." Read More
Respondeat superior - Latin for "let the master speak" does not apply to the acts of an independent contractor. Of course, it all depends on your jurisdiction. Different states have different laws, but normally, you cannot sue an employer for the acts of an independent contractor. Of course, to make things more difficult, each state has its own definitions of what an independent contractor are. Generally, the more control the employer has over a person… Read More
"Respondeat Superior" is a Latin term translated means "Let the master speak". In legal matters, it is a plea to hold the most trained, knowledgeable, and ranking individual accountable, or to at least have them explain the situation as they understand it. For example, if a patient received a filling in a tooth that later required a crown and root canal, the patient might want to hold the dentist and his assistant responsible for a… Read More
To answer this question, I assume that a person was assaulted at a place of business. If the assaulting person is an employee of the company then it would be proper to name the company as a defendant under the doctrine of respondeat superior. If the assulting person is not an employee of the business then the company might still be at fault for failing to provide proper security. Read More
Ferdinand Kerschner has written: 'Dienstnehmerhaftpflichtgesetz' -- subject(s): Employers' liability, Master and servant, Respondeat superior, Third parties (Law) Read More
C. H. Brants has written: 'Strafvervolging van overheden' -- subject(s): Government liability, Respondeat superior, Administrative responsibility Read More
Did European countries not test the Monroe Doctrine because of America's superior military strength?
Not at all. The Europeans benefited from the Monroe Doctrine as it enabled them to peacefully trade with the United States and the Caribbean islands without interference from their European enemies. Read More
It depends. There are certain situations where they could be. If they gave faulty instructions to their agent, of they were negligent in hiring the agent, or if they did not supervise the agent properly. Then, there is the doctrine of Respondeat Superior, which allows a principal to be liable for their agent's acts that happened while the agent was acting "in the scope" of the agent's authority. Then, there are specific factors that have… Read More
A clinical social wk supervisor will not be legally liable for the acts of a supervisee based upon which legal theory negligent supervision vicarious liability intentional tort or respondeat superior?
Vicarious liability Read More
No they didn't. They thought that America would fall with the Monroe Doctrine. Read More
it means its time for you to get a dictionary Read More
Instruction by question and answer, especially on religious doctrine. Read More
The definition of doctrine of corporate negligence is a legal doctrine which will hold health facilities responsible for the well-being of patients. Due diligence is expected from these corporate facilities. Read More
A doctrine is a belief, or set of beliefs, held and taught by a Church, political party or other group. Read More
true Read More
dominus respondeat Read More
To overcome, master or subdue by a superior force Read More
* a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof * a doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative; "he believed all the Marxist dogma" Read More
No. Respondeat Superior is a legal doctrine that allows a business to be held responsible for the actions of the employee. But the employee is still liable. Example: I'm driving and get into a car crash with a Pepsi truck. If the truck driver caused the accident, he could be held liable to pay for my vehicle or medical expenses. However, if he was delivering Pepsi on the job, Pepsi may also be held liable… Read More
judging other cultures by the standards of your own, which you believe to be superior. Read More
to be wiser, smarter, better or have more power then others around you Read More
The solemn definition of papal infallibility. Read More
It is the doctrine that helps the executive branch speak with one voice. Read More
The definition of Advaita Vedanta is non-dualism or monism, the doctrine that declares that there is only one reality, that the individual Self and the Brahman are classed as one. Read More
When you cross breed two animals and the offspring becomes superior to the parents. Read More
I am assuming by "responsible" you mean "liable." Under my assuption, in most states the answer is probably both, so long as the doctor was acting within the scope of his employment when he committed the malpractice. The doctor would be directly liable, and the hospital through a theory of respondeat superior. Read More
The definition of the word dissident is: A person who is actively opposed to an official policy, insitution or doctrine. It was first used in 1940, in the political sense, in the Soviet Union. Read More
When a court looks to its prior cases to apply the law or to find the definition of a contract term the court is relying on what doctrine?
The doctrine of stare decisis (Latin: Let the decision stand) relies on precedents, or case law. Read More
To be superior to someone,a higher rank,or for math a number greater than another number. Read More
When a party gives up the right to contractual performance in exchange for a new benefit Read More
The definition of value assumption is what members of society are considered good or bad based on position in life. It is assuming that some are superior over others based on where they are in life. Read More
The rule by providing that evidence obtained bt illegal means may nonethless be admissible if the connection between the evidence and the illegal means is sufficiently remote. This is an exception to the "Fruits-of-the-Poisonous-Tree doctrine. Read More
White power ---------------- it most certainly was not 'white power', there is no mention of 'white' in 'superior race', that is your own definition. the closest that we would get is 'ubermenchen', which is the opposite of 'untermenchen', the word for inferior race. Read More
To be humbled is to be lowered in dignity or importance. It also means to decisively defeat someone who thought themselves to be superior. Read More
By definition, apex is the lowermost and outermost portion of the heart. So it has to be inferior. Read More
Unclean hands, sometimes clean hands doctrine or dirty hands doctrine is an equitable defense in which the defendant argues that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain an equitable remedy on account of the fact that the plaintiff is acting unethically or has acted in bad faith with respect to the subject of the complaint-that is, with "unclean hands". Read More