Respondeat Superior | Civil Law for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Understanding Vicarious Liability

• Definition: Vicarious liability refers to a situation where someone who didn't directly cause harm is held accountable due to their legal relationship with the individual who caused the harm.
• Example: An employer being held responsible for the actions of their employee during work hours is a classic instance of vicarious liability.

Development of Vicarious Liability

• Legal Evolution: The concept of vicarious liability has evolved through legal cases over time.
• Legal Maxims: Two important legal sayings related to vicarious liability are "Qui Facit Per Alium Facit Per Se" and "Respondeat Superior."

Respondeat Superior Doctrine

• Meaning: Respondeat superior, originating in the United States, translates to "Let the master answer."
• Employer Accountability: This doctrine holds employers accountable for the actions of their employees within the scope of their employment.
• Risk Allocation: It allocates business-related risks to the appropriate party, typically the employer.
• Liability Scope: Both employers and masters can be liable for negligent actions of employees or agents acting within their employment duties.

Scope of Liability

• Employee Actions: Actions undertaken by employees within their job responsibilities can lead to vicarious liability.
• Implied Authority: Liability can extend to actions by agents with the employer's implied or express authorization.

Understanding the Key Aspects of Respondeat Superior Doctrine

• The principle of "respondeat superior" doesn't automatically shield an employee from liability; it involves specific criteria for application.
• For this principle to hold, two conditions must be met:
  • Establishing a genuine relationship between the employer and the employee, or the master and the servant.
  • The wrongful act must occur within the scope of employment.
• It's essential to recognize that a master or employer can be held accountable for actions not explicitly authorized by them if committed by their employees during work.
• An illustrative case is where a court dismissed a defense based on a "Contract of Service," which denotes a temporary service agreement. The court ruled that a hospital, as the overseeing entity, bore responsibility towards patients and couldn't evade liability due to negligence. Consequently, the hospital, acting as the principal, was held liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

By ensuring a true relationship between employer and employee and confining wrongful acts to the scope of employment, the doctrine of respondeat superior serves to uphold accountability and responsibility in professional settings.

Understanding the Employee-Employer Relationship for Respondeat Superior

• An action is classified as occurring within employment if it involves either a wrongful act authorized by the employer or a wrongful and unauthorized method of executing an authorized act by the employer.
• Establishing a clear employee-employer relationship is crucial for the application of the legal doctrine of respondeat superior, which holds employers responsible for the actions of their employees.
• Examining the liability in such scenarios requires an assessment of factors that define the relationship between an employer and an employee.
• Modern evaluations include tests like the "hire and fire" test, which is significant in determining the nature of the relationship.

Tests for Determination of Relationship for Application of Respondeat Superior

The Direction and Control Test

• When differentiating between a master-servant relationship and that of independent contractors, the crucial factor lies in the level of direction and control exerted by the masters.
• Masters establish liability for the acts of their servants through their authority to give instructions and command the agent's actions during employment.
• Independent contractors, on the other hand, are hired for their services and operate with more autonomy. While some directions can be provided, there is no direct control over their actions.
• For example, when you hire a taxi, you can suggest directions to the driver, but you cannot control how they drive or which route they take. Similarly, independent contractors exercise discretion in matters not explicitly specified beforehand.

The Hire and Fire Test

• In recent times, the traditional 'control' test for determining the 'master and servant' relationship has diminished in significance.
• While the right of control remains important where relevant, it is no longer the sole factor in establishing the master-servant relationship.
• The 'hire and fire' test has gained prominence as it suggests that an employee can be dismissed for engaging in unauthorized actions.
• What distinguishes the master-servant relationship from that of an independent contractor is the ability to terminate the employee for engaging in prohibited activities, in addition to control.
• In the case of Cassidy v. Ministry of Health, the court examined whether the employer actually exercises control over the employees' actions and methods.

Meaning of "Course of Employment" for Application of Respondeat Superior

Definition: The term "course of employment" refers to all situations that may arise while an individual is performing their job duties as instructed by their employer. It is a crucial consideration for applying the doctrine of respondeat superior, which holds employers liable for their employees' actions.

Legal Interpretation (InS. S. Manufacturing Co. v. Bai Valu Raja AIR 1958 SC 881)

• Employment Commencement: Typically, an employee's work duties commence upon reaching the workplace and end when leaving the premises.
• Travel Exclusions: Usually, the journey to and from work is not considered part of the "course of employment."
• Notional Extension: The concept of notional extension extends the employer's premises to include areas the employee passes through while traveling to or from work. This extension can apply in both time and place, allowing for a broader interpretation of "course of employment."
• Case-specific Analysis: Each case requires a thorough examination to determine if an accident occurred within the course of employment, considering the theory of notional extension.

Case Law Example (Mackinnon. Mackenzie & Co. (P). Ltd. v. Ibrahim Muhammad. Issak, AIR 1970 SC 1906)

• Requirement for Compensation: An injury must both arise "out of" and be "in the course of" employment to qualify for compensation.
• Interpretation of Terms: "In the course of employment" refers to the employee's assigned tasks and related duties. "Arising out of employment" indicates that the injury results from inherent risks in the job role.
• Scope of Employment: The phrase "arising out of employment" encompasses not only the nature of the job but also its conditions, obligations, and incidents. If an employee faces a specific danger due to these factors, the injury is considered work-related.
• Causal Relationship: There must be a direct link between the accident and the employment duties. Compensation claims are usually successful if the injury occurs due to a risk inherently associated with the job.

Negligent and Intentional Torts

• Respondeat Superior and Its Application
  • Respondeat superior applies to both negligent and intentional torts.
• Negligent Acts or Torts
  • In cases of negligence, employers are presumed to have directed or granted autonomy to employees.
  • If an employee makes mistakes in exercising autonomy, the employer can be held liable.
  • Employers can intervene or restructure if dissatisfied with employee choices.
• Intentional Torts or Acts
  • Courts are less likely to attribute liability to employers in cases of intentional torts.
  • There is a presumption that employees do not intentionally harm others.
  • If employees harm intentionally and without employer authorization, liability may not be attributed to the employer.
  • If an employer authorized or encouraged such acts, they may be held liable.
• Hiring with Prior Offenses
  • Employers can still be held accountable if they hire employees with prior offenses who then act negligently.

Case Laws on Doctrine of Respondeat Superior

Automobiles Transport vs. Dewalal

• The Rajasthan High Court held the Automobiles Transport Company accountable for the actions of its employee under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
• It is assumed that a vehicle is operated under the employer's guidance or by an authorized representative.
• An example cited is when a driver encounters a roadblock; waiting is preferred over taking unauthorized action.
• Failure to disprove this assumption leads to the employer's liability based on vicarious liability principles.

Savita Garg vs. The Director, National Heart Institute

• The Supreme Court ruled that in an employment scenario, the institution is responsible for its agent's conduct, such as a doctor's actions.
• The hospital must demonstrate they acted diligently and responsibly to avoid liability in negligence cases.
• Non-disclosure of treatment information by the hospital can result in liability.

Lloyd v. Grace Smith & Co.

• The House of Lords found a firm accountable for the deceitful actions of its agent, even if the agent acted for personal gain.
• The firm was held liable as the agent operated within the apparent authority granted by the firm.

Morris v. C.W. Martin & Sons

• The Court of Appeal held an employer responsible for an employee's theft committed during work duties.
• An employer can be held liable for an employee's dishonest actions if they occur within the scope of employment.

Poland v. Parr & Sons

• An employer was found liable for an employee's actions when excessive force was used to protect the employer's property.
• Employers can be held accountable for their employees' conduct during employment, even if actions are deemed excessive.

Century Insurance Co. v. Northern Ireland Road Transport Board

• Employers were held responsible for a driver's negligent act of causing harm to a third party during work.
• Employers can be liable for their employees' negligence during work duties leading to harm to others.

Conclusion

• In conclusion, the doctrine of respondeat superior, also known as vicarious liability, imposes responsibility on employers for the actions of their employees or servants performed during the course of employment. This doctrine is rooted in the idea of allocating risks to businesses and regulating the conduct of those in supervisory roles.
• To establish liability under respondeat superior, two essential conditions must be demonstrated: a genuine employer-employee or master-servant relationship, and the tortious act must fall within the scope of employment.