Respondeat Superior Doctrine – What it Means in Your Lawsuit

The respondeat superior doctrine refers to how an employer is responsible for the actions of their employees at work.

This doctrine is especially relevant when someone is hurt due to the actions of a worker doing their job. The victim may then sue the employer directly for the negligent actions of their employee.

Before respondeat superior, accident victims had to sue the employee directly, but the company ordering them remained untouched. The employee may not have the insurance or assets to handle such a lawsuit, leaving no damages for the victim.

Respondeat superior allows those suffering to target the negligent companies directly, while ensuring they receive the damages they deserve.

This legal doctrine may occur in multiple types of lawsuits, such as:

• Personal injury law
• Workers’ compensation
• Employment law

If you feel the respondeat superior doctrine applies to you, consider discussing your case with an attorney in your area. The best way to receive guidance is directly through a legal expert who knows your state’s local laws.

What Does the Respondeat Superior Doctrine Mean?

A tort is an act or negligent behavior that causes injury or harm to another person. Respondeat superior is a legal doctrine sometimes used in tort law. It is a Latin phrase that, when translated to English, means “let the master answer.”

In most states, respondeat superior says employers will be vicariously liable for wrongful acts committed by their employees within the scope of their employment.

If you were subject to another person’s negligence, the respondeat superior doctrine may apply to your legal case and could affect the size of your damages settlement.

If the respondeat superior principle is invoked, the plaintiff may find both the employer and the employee liable for damages.

How to Prove Respondeat Superior Applies to Your Case

The two main ways to see whether respondeat superior applies to your case is through determining the following:

1. The agent committed a wrongful act
2. The act occurred within the scope of their employment

If the agent was acting to benefit the company in some way, their employer may be vicariously liable for damages as well.

Determining whether an action was work-related or under a company’s benefit may be tricky depending on the situation.

For example, in Bailey v. Filco, Inc. (1996), David C. Bailey was hurt in a car accident caused by Carolyn Shinn, an employee working for Filco, Inc. Shinn was on-break during the time of the accident.

Bailey sued Filco under the doctrine of respondeat superior, but it was ruled that Shinn was not within the scope of her employment during the accident. Respondeat superior was not ruled into the lawsuit, and Bailey could not sue Filco for the actions of their employee.

Proving the respondeat superior doctrine may be difficult, so the court devised two tests to better relate an employee’s actions to their employment.

The Benefits Test

This test measures whether the employee’s actions explicitly or implicitly benefits the employer. If the employee was on company premises with expressed or implicit permission during the time of accident, the benefits test applies.

The benefits test also applies when an employee engages in social or recreational acts permitted by the employer. If someone was hurt during these actions, through the benefits test, the company may be liable under respondeat superior.

The Characteristics Test

If the employee’s actions were explicitly following their job description and someone was hurt, the company may be liable.

These tests may be more complicated if the guilty agent was an independent contractor hired by the company. Under such circumstances, the courts would use the balancing test to determine the company’s liability for the contractor’s negligent actions.

Respondeat Superior vs. Vicarious Liability

Vicarious liability (also known as imputed liability), is when a principal party such as an employer is responsible for the actionable conduct of their agent (such as an employee) based on the relationship between two or more parties.

Vicarious liability falls under the respondeat superior doctrine. It holds that the principal (the employer) is in control of the agent (the employee) and the agent’s actions represent the principal.

Common Defenses Against Respondeat Superior

Employees often make their own decisions not within the scope of their jobs – even when they’re technically at work. For example, an accountant may have to pick up their child from school or a nurse might step into the hallway to text a friend.

Therefore, the most common defense to respondeat superior claims is the frolic and detour exception.

This exception, the wording of which comes from England, says that an employer may not be held liable for their employee’s actions during the time they were doing some outside-of-work activity (frolic) or taking a route for a personal purpose (detour).

Other defenses against respondeat superior include the argument that the employee was an independent contractor or acting outside the scope of their employment when the negligent act occurred.

What if the Party Liable was an Independent Contractor?

This doctrine does not apply to independent contractors; however, a lawyer can determine if they are legitimately independent contractors. In some cases, an employer calls them that to avoid liability.

To evaluate this, the law examines factors showing that a company exercises direction and control over a person. An employee is NOT an independent contractor if:

• The company controls the days/hours the person works.
• The company controls the details/process of the person’s work.
• The “contractor” cannot accept other jobs while working for the company.

Exceptions to the Respondeat Superior Doctrine

The standard for invoking respondeat superior differs depending on the state where you live.

For example, many states hold that if an employee stops acting on behalf of an employer while on the job, the doctrine of respondeat superior may not apply.

Determining if the employee stopped acting on behalf of their employer isn’t always clear-cut. It involves considering whether the workers’ conduct was of the same general nature of the work he or she had been hired to do.

Another exception applies to federal employees. The Westfall Act protects federal employees from being held liable for actions committed while under the scope of their federal employment. Thus, federal employees enjoy certain exceptions from the respondeat superior doctrine.

Find a Lawyer Who Knows the Respondeat Superior Doctrine

If you’ve been involved in an accident due to an employee’s negligence, you may need to sue their employer to recover damages.

Don’t let your hospital fees, lost wages, and pain and suffering get waived away by a corporation. Find an attorney through LegalASAP’s 500+ legal network to verify whether you have a claim worth pursuing.