The doctrine of respondeat superior is used in the context of the _____

Agency law is said to be ___ ____ because it has its own principles, rules, doctrines, and concepts, which belong only to agency.

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.

Table of Contents Show

How can Respondeat Superior apply?
An example of Respondeat Superior
When can an employer be held liable?
Jurisdictional Differences
Strict Liability Comparison
Independent Contractors
Federal employees
Further Reading
RATIFICATION [4213.03]

“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” (Legal Dictionary).

How can Respondeat Superior apply?

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 respondeat superior applies, an employer will be liable for an employee’s negligent actions or omissions that occur during the course and scope of the employee’s employment. This means that the employee must be performing duties for the employer at the time of the negligence for the employer to be held liable under respondeat superior” (Justia).

The question in a legal case becomes whether an employee was in fact acting within the normally expected scope of employment when the actions occurred that are being called up in the case. A court may consider the employee’s job description or assigned duties, the time, place, and purpose of the employee’s act and whether their actions were indeed part of their normal job or if they were acting as an employee with the intent of fulfilling their job or furthering the interest of their employer at the time of the incident.

An example of Respondeat Superior

For example, if there is a personal injury case that involves a situation where a truck driver’s negligence results in a truck accident, the injured individual can also try to bring the driver’s employer-often the trucking company itself- into the case and hold them liable as well. This can make a big difference as to whether the victim of the accident actually recovers all of his or her damages after obtaining a judgment. A plaintiff need not show that the employer was independently negligent but must prove there was an employment relationship.

It is common practice for many trucking companies and similar industries to hire workers as independent contractors as a way to avoid being held legally responsible for their actions and any lawsuits that arise because of the work they do for their client. Respondeat superior only applies to employment relationships, not the relationship between a company and an independent contractor. However, most courts will still hold a worker as an employee if other criteria are meat, even if they are given the title of independent contractor. This is why it is important to know all of the details of the incident involved in the case.

When can an employer be held liable?

According to TheLawDicitionary.com, the party in a lawsuit attempting to hold an employer vicariously liable for the actions of an employee must prove each of the following:

The individual was an employee when the injury occurred
The employee was acting within the scope of his or her employment
The activities of the employee were a benefit to the employer

In general, even if an employee does act outside the scope of employment, an employer can be held liable in some jurisdictions if it subsequently ratifies the wrongful actions. The question that must be answered in respondeat superior cases is whether the employee’s acts were in furtherance of the employer’s interests. It is still a very complicated process and it is not something that a plaintiff should attempt on their own!

If you have questions about an injury you sustained, the strength of a personal injury case you have, or have questions about who is responsible for your injury, give us a call. Our team is ready to go to work for you and will assist you with every step of the process. Call today to schedule your free consultation review with our legal team and take the first step towards forming your personal injury case and invoking the legal power of respondeat superior and fight for your rights with us by your side.

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 will generally look to the doctrine of joint and several liability when assigning damages.

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:

Benefits Test
1. When the employee’s social or recreational pursuits on the employer’s premises after hours are endorsed by the express or implied permission of the employer and are conceivably of some benefit to the employer, then the employer is liable for harm resulting from the employee’s actions.
Characteristics Test
1. If the employee's action is common enough for that job that the action could be fairly deemed to be characteristic of the job, then the employer will be liable for harm resulting from the employee’s actions.

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, respondeat superior 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:

the extent of control that the agent and the principal have agreed the principal may exercise over details of the work
whether the agent is engaged in a distinct occupation or business
whether the type of work done by the agent is customarily done under a principal’s direction or without supervision
the skill required in the agent’s occupation
whether the agent or the principal supplies the tools and other instrumentalities required for the work and the place in which to perform it
the length of time during which the agent is engaged by a principal
whether the agent is paid by the job or by the time worked
whether the agent’s work is part of the principal’s regular business
whether the principal and the agent believe that they are creating an employment relationship
whether the principal is or is not in business.
the extent of control that the principal has exercised in practice over the details of the agent’s work."

Federal employees

Under the Westfall Act, federal employees will not be held liable for wrongdoings committed during the scope of their employment.

RATIFICATION [4213.03]

· Ratification: The express or implied affirmation of a previously unauthorized contract made by a purported agent. In summary:

(1) The purported agent must have acted on behalf of the principal who subsequently ratified the action;

(2) The principal must know all material facts involved in the transaction;

(3) The agent's act must be affirmed in its entirety by the principal;

(4) The principal must have the legal capacity to affirm the transaction both

(a) at the time the agent acts, and

(b) at the time the principal ratifies;

(5) The principal must affirm before the third party withdraws from the transaction;

and (all of this stuff must exist!)

(6) The principal must observe the same formalities when he or she ratifies the act as would have been required to authorize it initially.

AGENT'S DUTIES TO THE PRINCIPAL (Principal’s Rights) [4219]

· Loyalty: An agent has the duty to act solely for the benefit of his or her principal, and not in the interest of the agent or a third party. Moreover, any information or knowledge obtained in the course of the agency is confidential. THE AGENT CANNOT PROFIT INDIVIDUALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE PRINCIPAL.

· Obedience: An agent has the duty to follow all lawful and clearly stated instructions of the principal. Why else would anyone agree to have an agent/principal relationship???

· Accounting: Unless otherwise agreed, an agent has the duty to keep and make available to the principal an account of all property and money received and paid out on the principal's behalf, including gifts received from third persons.

· Performance: An agent impliedly agrees to use reasonable diligence and skill (except for a specialist, who is held to a higher degree of skill) in performing the task in its entirety. In other words, due care.

· Notification: An agent is required to notify the principal of all matters that come to the agent's attention concerning the subject matter of the agency. As a result, the principal must be in constant communication with the agent.

PRINCIPAL'S DUTIES (Agent’s rights)

TO THE AGENT [4220]

· Compensation: When a principal requests certain services from an agent, the principal has a duty to pay the agent, in a timely manner, for those services rendered.

· Reimbursement: Whenever an agent disburses sums of money to fulfill the principal's request or to pay for necessary expenses incurred in the reasonable performance of his or her duties, the principal has the duty to reimburse the agent.

· Indemnification: Subject to the terms of the agency agreement, the principal has a duty to compensate, or indemnify, the agent for liabilities arising from the agent's lawful and authorized acts on the principal's behalf.

· Cooperation: A principal has the duty to cooperate with the agent and to assist the agent in performing his or her duties.

· Safe Working Conditions: A principal has the duties (i) to provide its agents and employees with safe working premises, equipment, and conditions, and (ii) to inspect working conditions and warn agents and employees of unsafe areas.

PRINCIPAL'S REMEDIES [4223]

· Most principal-agent relationships are governed by some actual or implied contract; therefore, most of the remedies available to a principal are the same available to any plaintiff in a breach of contract case. In other words, the principal can sue!!!

· However, in the event that the agent violates her fiduciary duties to the principal, the following may also apply:

o Constructive Trust: Anything an agent obtains by virtue of the agency relationship belongs to the principal; therefore, a principal may sue to recover any benefits retained by the agent. This is the reason anything developed in intellectual property while on the job belongs to the employer, not the employee, although usually, but not necessarily, the employer will allow the employee to share in the royalties.

o Avoidance: In the event that the agent breaches her contract with the principal, the principal may elect to avoid any contract he entered into with the agent.

o Indemnification: To the extent that the agent's breach causes harm to some third party, who then sues the principal, the principal may seek indemnification from the agent.

LIABILITY FOR CONTRACTS:

AUTHORIZED ACTS/CLASSIFICATION

[4225, 4215, 4216]

A disclosed or partially disclosed principal is liable to a third party for a contract made by an agent who is acting within the scope of his or her authority.

· Disclosed Principal: A principal whose identity is known to the third party at the time the agent makes a contract for the principal with the third party. For example, I go in and say I am representing my client, Mr. X, on his behalf.

· Partially Disclosed Principal: A principal whose identity is not known to the third party, but the third party does know that the agent is representing some principal at the time the agent makes a contract with the third party. In many states, the agent is also liable on a contract with a partially disclosed principal. For example, maybe I am representing someone big, like Disney, and I am buying some land for a new amusement park. If the seller knew it was Disney, the price would skyrocket.

· Undisclosed Principal: When neither the fact of agency nor the identity of the principal is disclosed by an agent to the third party at the time a contract is made, the agent is presumed to be acting on his or her own behalf, and will be liable as a party to the contract. NOTICE: If, in fact, the agent was authorized to act on behalf of the undisclosed principal, then the principal will also be liable on the contract and subject to indemnification. Here, I go in and don’t say a word that I am representing someone else.

LIABILITY FOR CONTRACTS: UNAUTHORIZED ACTS (by Agent) [4225, 4226]

· If an unauthorized agent contracts with a third party, the principal cannot be held liable on the contract, regardless of whether the principal was disclosed, partially disclosed, or undisclosed. Rather, the agent will be solely liable.

· However, if the third party knows or should know at the time of the contract that the agent lacks authority to contract on behalf of the principal, the agent will not be liable to the third party.

PRINCIPAL’S LIABILITY FOR AGENT'S TORTS [4227]

· Respondeat Superior: The doctrine by which an employer or other principal is liable, along with the agent or employee, for any tort committed by the agent or employee while acting within the scope of their agency or employment.

· To determine whether a tort was within the scope of agency or employment, courts look at the following:

(1) whether the act was authorized;

(2) the time, place, and purpose of the act;

(3) whether the act was one commonly performed by employees on behalf of their employers;

(4) whether the employer's interest was advanced;

(5) whether the employee's interests were involved;

(6) whether the employer furnished the means or instrumentality by which the injury was inflicted;

(7) whether the employer had reason to know; and

(8) whether the act involved a serious crime.

Generally the principal is not responsible for the torts of an independent contractor, except in situations which is inherently dangerous, illegal, nondelegatable, or impossible to separate from the principal.

· "Frolics": A principal is not liable for the acts of an agent who substantially departs from the principal's business. For example, someone takes the company truck to Galveston to go on the beach when he should be in Conroe and hurts someone while in Galveston.

· Borrowed Servants: A principal may be liable for the acts of an agent "lent" to another if the principal retained the primary right to control the agent's activities.

· Dangerous Conditions: A principal is charged with knowledge of any dangerous conditions discovered by an agent and pertinent to the agency regardless of whether the agent actually informs the principal of the condition.

· Intentional Torts: Principals are liable only for those intentional torts that are committed within the course and scope of the agent's actions on behalf of the principal.

· Crimes: A principal is not liable for an agent's crime if the agent independently undertook the crime.

· Subagents: A principal is liable for the acts of subagents hired by an agent authorized to hire subagents.

AGENCY RELATIONSHIPS: TERMINATION [4229]

· By Act of the Parties: An agency may be terminated by any of the following:

(1) lapse of time;

(2) accomplishment of particular purpose for agency;

(3) occurrence of a specific event (closed the deal, for example);

(4) mutual agreement of the agent and principal; and

(5) renunciation (by the agent) or revocation (by the principal) of the agent's authority.

· By Operation of Law: An agency may also terminate as a matter of law due to:

(1) death or incompetence of the agent or principal;

(2) impossibility of performance;

(3) materially changed circumstances; and/or

(4) bankruptcy of the principal or agent.

The principal should also give notice to 3rd parties of the termination of the agency to anyone that has dealt with the agent, which includes “published” notice.