Respondeat superior refers to the legal doctrine generally used in tort law. Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, the employer or a principal could be held vicariously liable for an unlawful or unjust act of an employee or an agent. For the employer or the principal to be vicariously liable under respondeat superior, the employer or the agent must commit the wrongful act while working in the scope of the employment or agency. For instance, if a pizza delivery man hits a pedestrian while delivering pizza, the principle of respondeat superior may be invoked. However, if the pizza delivery man hits a pedestrian with the delivery vehicle while driving to his girlfriend’s apartment, then the victim in this unfortunate collision probably may not invoke respondeat superior. If the respondeat superior principle is invoked, then the plaintiff may find both the employer and the employee in question liable for damages. The court typically invokes the joint and several liability doctrine to calculate the damages.
However, the standard for invoking respondeat superior differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The judiciary provides each state the power to create the standard for respondeat superior, which results in the different standards. Nevertheless, most jurisdictions adopt two tests: the benefits test and the characteristics test.
- Benefits Test: The courts may find the employer liable for damages from the employee’s actions if the courts find the employee’s actions as are either expressly or implicitly permitted by the employer and confer a benefit for the employer, even if the employee’s actions that resulted in harm based on the social or recreational pursuits of the employee on the premises of the employer.
- Characteristics Test: The courts may find the employer liable for damages from the employee’s actions if the courts find the employee’s action as the common characteristics of the employee’s job description.
Also, some exceptions may apply to employers if the wrongdoer in question is an independent contractor and not an employee. The balancing test under the Third Restatement of Torts for distinction is as follows:
- Whether the agent and the principal initially agreed on how much control the principal would exercise on the agent and the details of the work done
- Whether the agent is engaged in a distinct occupation or business
- Whether the agent’s work is customarily expected to be under the principal’s direction or supervision
- The extent of skill required for the occupation of the agent
- Whether or not the principal provides the necessary place, tools, and instrumentalities for the work
- The amount of time the agent works for the principal
- Whether the agent is paid by a set salary or by the time worked
- Whether the agent’s work involves the principal’s regular business operations
- Whether the principal and the agent believe that what they have is an employment relationship
- Whether or not the principal is in business
- The amount of control the principal has exercised over the details of the agent’s work.
Finally, federal employees enjoy exceptions from the respondeat superior doctrine. The Westfall Act protects federal employees from being held liable for actions committed while under the scope of their federal employment.
See: strict liability (comparison).
[Last updated in April of 2024 by the Wex Definitions Team]