Business Law: Respondeat Superior, Negligence

521 Words3 Pages
When an employee commits a criminal offense, should the employer who hired that employee be held liable for the employee’s act? Unfortunately, the answer is unclear and depends on case-by-case basis. In fact, the outcome of the court case, in which whether employers should be liable for their employees’ criminal acts, would be determined using these three legal principles: respondeat superior, negligence in employment, and negligent entrustment. Respondeat superior, meaning “let the master answer,” holds a master to be accountable for the servant’s wrongdoing based on the concept of vicarious liability: the superior should be responsible for the acts of their subordinates. Respondeat superior holds an employer to be liable for the authorized or unauthorized act of its employees within the scope of employment. Negligence in employment, which refers to negligence in hiring, retention, supervision, and training of its employees, also holds an employer accountable for its employees’ criminal offense. Negligent entrustment is the cause of action when an employer provides its employees with dangerous instruments which…show more content…
In addition, respondeat superior is based on the reason that the employees are the agents of the employer; therefore their acts are the employer’s acts. The relationship between the employer and its employees is formed within the scope of employment. The modern respondeat superior eliminates the requirement that the employer to be held liable for its employees’ acts must have specifically told or approve those acts. The new requirements have been modified to consider the employer is vicariously liable if 1) the employees’ acts are within the scope of employment and 2) the employer has control over the employees based on the employees’ status (“Respondeat Superior,”

    More about Business Law: Respondeat Superior, Negligence

      Open Document