Legal Theory Respondeat Superior

The concept of respondeat superior has its roots in ancient Rome. [4] At that time, the concept applied to slaves, because it was the meaning of what was translated as servant, and it applied when the slave could not pay for the act himself. [5] It was later expanded to apply not only to slaves, but also to animals and family members of the family master. [6] The employee would have to perform a task for his employer or do something at the time of the business to have the preponderance of responsibility applied. Agency law distinguishes between two basic types of agents: servants (including all employees) and independent contractors. Respondeat superior generally only applies to servants. The senior respondent is an extension of the principle of vicarious liability, which makes the employer responsible for an employee`s conduct. The employer`s liability depends on the aggrieved party`s ability to prove the employee`s negligence. In other words, if there is not enough evidence to prove that an employee acted negligently, the action against the employer should also be dismissed. In 1698, the doctrine in dicta was adopted by Sir Holt in the English case Jones v. Hart, 2 Salk 441, 90 eng.

rep. (K.B. 1698). [6] In the United States, in Wright v. Wilcox, 19 Wend. 343, 32 hours. December 508 (1838), in which a boy was mounted on a chariot driven by the servant of the accused, who drove his horses faster, causing the boy to be thrown and wounded. [6] The judge held that the master under the superior respondent was not liable because the servant had acted by driving the horses in a manner that the master had not accepted and was therefore not within the scope of his employment. [6] The senior respondent can be considered in two ways, which usually, but not always, leads to parallel conclusions. Just because a company claims someone is an independent contractor doesn`t mean it`s always true.

They would have to prove that the employer controls the actions of the so-called independent contractor. Another way to hold a company liable in cases where it claims not to be an employer is to sue it for negligent hiring or training. If there is no right of control, it is an independent employer-contractor relationship and not an employer-employee relationship. Respondeat superior does not apply if the employee is an independent contractor. Unlike employees, who are usually in permanent employment and are subject to the day-to-day control of their employer, independent contractors usually have independent businesses, are hired exclusively for specific and discreet tasks and are paid “after employment” (5). In addition, independent contractors generally have “exclusive control over the means and methods of the work to be performed” (1). While physicians` exercise independent medical judgment when treating their patients is a factor that demonstrates lack of control, this “sole control” is only one factor and does not determine whether an employed physician is an employee or an independent contractor (6). For example, medical residents and medical schools are generally considered employees rather than independent contractors, even if they exercise independent medical judgment in the treatment of their patients (6). The superior respondent frees the victim from the need to prove that the master was directly negligent: it is sufficient to prove that the servant was negligent. Thus, if an employer reasonably creates a work situation in which employees can negligently injure persons, respondeat superior means that the employer is liable without proof for the employer`s negligence. For example, imagine a delivery service that properly trains employees and sends them into reasonably well-maintained cars, but an employee carelessly smashes a stop sign and injures someone. Respondeat superior means that the negligence of the employee is considered that of the employer: the delivery company cannot take the (inconsistent) position that the employee works for it (and its actions are its own) if it delivers correctly, but not if it crosses traffic lights.

Because it crossed the traffic light during its mission, the company is responsible. The rule originated in England in the late 17th century and was intended to prevent employers from evading financial responsibility for the actions of their employees. Respondeat superior was first used in the mid-19th century to justify an accusation, first in England and shortly thereafter in the United States. By the end of the 19th century, there were enough precedents for prosecuting sub-respondent companies.