Origin Rooted in the common law doctrine of agency, expressed by the Latin maxim respondeat superior.
Vicarious liability is a doctrine of tort law under which one party, most commonly an employer, can be held legally responsible for the wrongful acts of another party, most commonly an employee, because of the relationship between them and the degree of control the first party exercises over the second, rather than because of any wrongdoing by the first party itself. Rooted in the common law doctrine of agency and often described by the Latin phrase respondeat superior, let the superior answer, the doctrine most commonly holds an employer liable for an employee's negligent acts committed within the scope of employment, even where the employee acted improperly while carrying out an otherwise authorized task. This description is adapted from Wikipedia contributors under CC BY-SA 4.0; changes were made. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
Facts
Origin PeriodRooted in the common law doctrine of agency, expressed by the Latin maxim respondeat superior. 1 Core PrincipleA party who engages another in a relationship of sufficient control, most typically an employer over an employee, can be held liable for that other's wrongful acts committed within the scope of the relationship, independent of any fault of the first party's own. 1 Connections
Formulated By
In Legal System
Source Vicarious Liability (Wikipedia)
Sources
1. Vicarious Liability (Wikipedia)
WikipediaLead section
The law has developed the view that some relationships by their nature require the person who engages others to accept responsibility for the wrongdoing of those others.
- In Legal System: Common Law
View the Source Frequently Asked Questions
When is an employer not liable for what an employee does?
No liability attaches when the employee is on a "frolic" of their own rather than the employer's business.
An employer is held liable if the employee has gone on a mere detour in carrying out their duties, such as stopping to buy a beverage or use an automated teller machine while running a work-related errand. An employee acting in their own right rather than on the employer's business is undertaking a "frolic" and will not subject the employer to liability.
How do courts decide whether a relationship is close enough for vicarious liability?
By tests such as control, organisation and sufficient relationship.
There must be a requisite relationship between the defendant and the tortfeasor, which could be examined by three tests: the control test, the organisation test and the sufficient relationship test. In Australia the sufficient relationship test, which balances several factors such as skill levels required in the job, pay schemes and degree of control granted to the worker, has been the favoured approach.
Reader Challenges (0)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.
Sign in to dispute this or suggest a correction.