Respondeat superior

Respondeat superior (Latin: 'let the master answer'; plural: respondeant superiores) is a doctrine that a party is responsible for (has vicarious liability for) acts of their agents.:794 For example, in the United States, there are circumstances when an employer is liable for acts 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. Respondeat superior (Latin: 'let the master answer'; plural: respondeant superiores) is a doctrine that a party is responsible for (has vicarious liability for) acts of their agents.:794 For example, in the United States, there are circumstances when an employer is liable for acts 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. In a broader scope, respondeat superior is based upon the concept of vicarious liability. The concept of respondeat superior has its roots in ancient Rome. At the time, the concept applied to slaves, as that was the meaning of what has been translated as servants, and applied where the slave could not pay himself for the act. It was later expanded to apply to not only slaves, but also to the animals and family members of the master of a family. In 1698 the doctrine was mentioned in dicta by Lord Holt in the English case of Jones v. Hart, 2 Salk 441, 90 Eng. Rep. (K.B. 1698). In the US, it was discussed in the case of Wright v. Wilcox, 19 Wend. 343, 32 Am. Dec. 508 (1838), in which a boy climbed on a wagon driven by defendant's servant, who drove his horses faster, causing the boy to be thrown and injured. The judge ruled that the master was not responsible under respondeat superior, because the servant had acted in a way in driving the horses that the master had not assented to, and therefore it was not within the scope of his employment. American Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. opined in 1891 that 'It is hard to explain why a master is liable to the extent he is for the negligent acts of one who, at the time, really is his servant, acting within the general scope of his employment. Probably master and servant are 'feigned to be all one person' by a fiction ...' Justice Holmes was of the view that the doctrine was in opposition to common sense. In 1916, British attorney Thomas Baty wrote that the doctrine, which he called a 'deep-pocket theory,' was 'derived from an inconsiderate use of precedents and a blind reliance on the slightest word of an eminent judge, and from the mistaken notion that his flights of imagination ... were actual decided cases...' 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 a servant commits a civil wrong against a third party, the employer or master could 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 the servant and master, that is, the employee and employer. The action against the employee would be based on his conduct. The action against the employer is based on the theory of vicarious liability, wherein a party can be held liable for the acts of a different party. The employer-employee relationship is the most common area 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 commit the act. There are three considerations generally: