Verified Document

Respondeat Superior: Who Should Prevail

Related Topics:

Wheels for Hire: Who Should Prevail? According to the definition provided by Black's Law Dictionary (1990), the doctrine of respondeat superior means literally "let the master answer." Pursuant to the respondeat superior doctrine, "a master is responsible for want of care on servants' part, towards those to whom master owes duty to use care, provided failure of servant to use such care occurred in course of his employment" (Black's, 1990, pp. 1311-1312). In sum, the doctrine of respondeat superior imposes vicarious liability on employers for the negligent acts committed by their employees who are "performing work assigned by the employer or engaging in a course of conduct subject to the employer's control" (Mossman, 2013, p. 36). The origins of the doctrine can be traced to 17th-century English law courts and emerged based on the concept that in the course of servants' employment, it can be presumed that they acted pursuant to their master's authority (Mossman, 2013).

In the Wheels for Hire case, it is the defendant's position that although Sam Spade and Curly Hurley were their agents, the company was not responsible for the injury-causing collision because they had formal policies and procedures in place to prevent unauthorized...

In sum, the defendants maintain that the doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply in this case because the agent, Hurley, was acting outside the purview of her employment by allowing Spade to use a vehicle during his lunch break to visit his mother and Spade was not authorized by top management to use the vehicle for personal use or to be where he was when the collision occurred. Moreover, the Wheels for Hire company policy provides that all vehicles are exclusively for business use only.
Conversely, the plaintiffs argue that the doctrine of respondeat superior is applicable because Spade and Hurley were in fact agents of the company and their actions were a direct consequence of their employment at Wheels for Hire.

The essential point in this case then devolves to whether Spade and Hurley were acting within the scope of their employment when they colluded to remove a vehicle from Wheels for Hire's parking lot. According to Johnson (2011), "The principle of respondeat superior means that an employer is legally responsible for the acts of its employees if those acts are within the scope of their employment" (p. 72). In those cases where the…

Sources used in this document:
References

Black's law dictionary. (1990). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.

Johnson, L.J. (2011, May 25). Employee status carries some potential risks. Medical Economics, 88(10), 71-73.

Mossman, D. (2013, June). Respondeat superior: What are your responsibilities? Current Psychiatry, 12(6), 36-39.
Cite this Document:
Copy Bibliography Citation

Related Documents

Unlucky and Edison- Lennie Edison, Employed by
Words: 903 Length: 2 Document Type: Essay

Unlucky and Edison- Lennie Edison, employed by Vulcan Systems, is on call 24/7 as a trouble shooter. Because of this, he drives a company vehicle, to and from work, and occasionally stops for errands after work on his way home. Edison is involved in a collision with Unlucky, who suffered bodily injury and damage to his car. Unlucky is suing both Edison and Vulcan in joint and several liabilities. Rule- Unlucky's attorney

Common Law and Constitution
Words: 1278 Length: 3 Document Type: Essay

National Do-Not-Call Registry and the CAN SPAM Act are both attempts to protect individuals from corporate marketing strategies. The National Do-Not-Call-Registry attempts to limit the ability of corporations to place unsolicited commercial calls to consumers, by allowing consumers to register up to three numbers on a Do-Not-Call list. Charities and political organizations are exempt from the list. The CAN SPAM Act is aimed at preventing spam email. While these

Diaz V Carcamo Legal Analysis
Words: 942 Length: 3 Document Type: Essay

Principle-Agency Relationships A principle-agency relationship exists between an employer and an employee. The employer sets out the scope of duties for the employee, and then the employee acts as agent in carrying out those duties. This relationship means that tortious acts committed by the employee while in the performance of duties relating to his employment are the responsibility of the company. Principals are “liable for the tortious conduct of an agent

Sexual Harassment and Discrimination Anna
Words: 1016 Length: 3 Document Type: Case Study

Given the context and the fact that being a convicted criminal and a sex offender could conceivably make the risk of any type of abuse (whether or not of a sexual nature) foreseeable, that defense is unlikely to succeed. However, generally, the knowledge of one Board member who does not disclose that knowledge to the Board will not be imputed to the rest of the Board. In any case,

Court Systems and Operations
Words: 1259 Length: 4 Document Type: Other

WEEK 1 CHAPTER REVIEW JOURNAL BLWeek 1 Chapter Review Journal BLQuestion 1In my opinion, if the Court were to hear a new flag burning case, it should follow precedent and find that setting the American flag ablaze essentially constitutes free speech and is secured by the U.S. constitution. This is more so the case given that in some scenarios, this may be the only powerful way to protest against certain

Sign Up for Unlimited Study Help

Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.

Get Started Now