
	Where results make sense

Topic: Respondeat superior

Related Topics

Bank of Credit and Commerce International

Agha Hasan Abedi

	Respondeat Superior Liability
		One of the hazards of having employees use vehicles to perform work for you is possible respondeat superior liability.
		Respondeat superior is a Latin term that lawyers sometimes use.
		In many respondeat superior cases, this may be your most viable option because accidents do happen while employees are performing duties within the scope of their jobs.
	business.uschamber.com /P04/P04_7335.asp (888 words)

	Respondeat superior: The theory employers should be liable for damages resulting from the misdeeds of employees.
		Respondeat superior: The theory employers should be liable for damages resulting from the misdeeds of employees.
		Both respondeat superior and the FTCA are limited by the notoriously vague standard of actions occurring "within the scope of the employee's duties," thus leaving courts with great latitude in deciding whether actions like driving between work-related functions are recoverable.
		Respondeat superior originated with the argument that when an employer asks an employee to perform a risky activity, the employer should pay the costs if any third party injuries result.
	www.cfif.org /htdocs/freedomline/current/guest_commentary/respondeat_superior.htm (793 words)

	Respondeat superior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		"Respondeat superior", Latin for "let the master answer", is a legal doctrine which states that an employer is responsible for employee actions performed within the course of the employment.
		The action against the master/employer is based upon the theory of vicarious liability, by which one party can be held liable for the acts of another.
		Employer/employee relationships are the most common area wherein respondeat superior is applied, but often the doctrine is used in the agency relationship.
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Respondeat_superior (328 words)

	Legal Definition of Respondeat Superior
		A principle of agency law which holds that a principal (or employer) is vicariously liable (also known as derivative liability) for the torts of his agent (or employee) which occur during the course of the agent's (or employee's) actions on behalf of the principal (or employer).
		"Respondeat superior, a doctrine centuries old, is predicated on the assumption that a master, employer, or principal will be held responsible for the acts of a servant, employee, or agent respectively.
		It is often used to refer to a relationship between a purported principal and agent, as in a "respondeat superior relationship".
	www.duhaime.org /LegalDictionary/R/Respondeatsuperior.aspx (380 words)

	IFPO
		The basis of the doctrine of respondeat superior is that out of principal social duty everyone should maintain his or her affairs whether conducted by himself or herself or an agent, which would be the employee.
		According to the doctrine of respondeat superior the principal/employer is liable for any harm caused to a third party bay an agent/employee within the scope of employment.
		Under respondeat superior it doesn't even matter if the employer owned the vehicle, as long as the actions that caused the accident were taken under the scope of employment.
	www.ifpo.org /articlebank/respondeat_superior.html (2042 words)

	Sixth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 6th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals - unoffical ...
		Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer is liable, despite having no fault whatsoever, for the acts of its employees taken within the scope of their employment.
		Under a respondeat superior rule, a principal is only held vicariously liable for torts committed by an agent when the agent acts for the benefit of his principal within the scope of his employment."); W.
		For respondeat superior liability to attach, the employee must have breached his duty to a third party while acting in the course and scope of his employment.
	www.romingerlegal.com /sixthcircuit/opinions/01a0076p-06.htm (5721 words)

	Hawaii Supreme Court Case No. 16747 (Site not responding. Last check: )
		DISCUSSION A. Indirect Liability Under Respondeat Superior Under the theory of respondeat superior, an employer may be liable for the negligent acts of its employees that occur within the scope of their employment.
		Thus, to recover under the respondeat superior theory, a plaintiff must establish: 1) a negligent act of the employee, in other words, breach of a duty that is the legal cause of plaintiff's injury; and 2) that the negligent act was within the employee's scope of employment.
		Thus, respondeat superior liability may be imposed notwithstanding the fact that the foreseeable effects of the actor's negligent conduct occur outside the scope of employment.
	www.hsba.org /htdocs/hsba/Legal_Research/Hawaii/members/sc/16747.HTM (5767 words)

	James B. Insco, Defense Of Superior Orders Before Military Commissions, 13 Duke J. of Comp. & Int'l L. 389 (2003) (Site not responding. Last check: )
		At issue are situations when a superior orders a subordinate to perform an illegal act, for example, attack hospitals, kill prisoners of war, or perpetrate other war crimes, and the subordinate carries out the act in compliance with the superior's orders.
		Conversely, the respondeat superior approach is underinclusive because it fails to assign responsibility in cases where a subordinate willingly follows an illegal order that he or she knows to be illegal.
		The supremacy of the law is upheld with the manifest illegality defense of superior orders, because the defense serves to establish that the defendant does not possess the mens rea required for the criminal act for which he is charged.
	www.law.duke.edu /journals/djcil/articles/djcil13p389.htm (11000 words)

	Employer Liability Under Respondeat Superior
		One long-standing exception is the doctrine of "respondeat superior," a Latin term meaning "let the master answer." Historically, the doctrine allowed recovery from a master/employer for injuries caused by a servant/employee.
		In most jurisdictions, respondeat superior or vicarious liability holds that an employer may be liable for damages arising from an employee's wrongful/tortious acts committed within the scope of employment.
		Analysis for imposing respondeat superior liability focuses on two issues: employee status and whether the acts occurred within the "scope" of the employment.
	www.attorney-austin.com /Article.aspx?id=33 (1073 words)

	No. COA01-1058--Creel v. N.C. Department of Health and Human Services
		On this basis, the Claim alleges that DHHS should be held liable for the Gambles’ alleged negligence under the doctrine of respondeat superior, and that the claimant is entitled to compensatory damages in the amount of $150,000.00.
		The doctrine of respondeat superior generally allows an employer (sometimes referred to as a “principal” in this context) to be held vicariously liable for tortious acts committed by an employee (sometimes referred to as an “agent” in this context) acting within the scope of his employment.
		Fundamental to the application of the doctrine of respondeat superior is the requirement that there be an employer-employee relationship between the parties.
	www.comp.state.nc.us /ncic/pages/court/ta-15663.htm (1175 words)

	VICARIOUS TORT LIABILITY
		THE RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR DOCTRINE: The employer/master may be liable for employee/servant's torts committed while acting within scope of employment.
		NOTE:: (1) The employee does not lose liability she otherwise had because of respondeat superior; and (2) in most jurisdictions, employer has a right of indemnity against wrongdoing employee for the losses sustained and paid by master/employer under respondeat superior.
		Analytically it stands alone, separate from respondeat superior, as a ground upon which to base a claim of vicarious tort liability.
	www.law.du.edu /heppenstall/vicarious_tort_liability.htm (1529 words)

	Pediatric Neurosurgery, P. C. v. Russell (2002) * Colorado
		However, that court held that liability under the theory of respondeat superior depends upon whether the corporation has the right to control the actions of the employee.
		Likewise, the theory of respondeat superior provides that an employer may be held vicariously liable for an employee's torts when the act is committed within the course and scope of employment.
		The court of appeals held that respondeat superior liability "depends upon a showing that the corporate entity had some right to direct or control the actions of the employee." Russell, 15 P.3d at 291.
	www.claimrep.com /laws/cases/Co/caseCOPediatric.htm (3687 words)

	The Law Offices of Scott Norris - Articles (Site not responding. Last check: )
		Under modern tort law, the employer is generally held strictly liable for the torts committed by its employees based on the doctrine of respondeat superior.
		The doctrine of respondeat superior is based on the view that holding the master strictly liable for the torts of its employees creates incentives for deterrence, increases the likelihood of full compensation for the victim by spreading out the costs and ensures businesses will bear the costs arising from the operation of its enterprise.
		Under this doctrine of respondeat superior, however, limits are imposed through the "scope of employment" requirement which provides the employer is not liable if the employee's conduct falls outside the scope of employment and has nothing to do with the enterprise.
	www.norrislawoffice.com /ar.html (523 words)

	91395 -- Cobb v. Corbett -- Brazil -- Kansas Court of Appeals
		In a negligence action, when a plaintiff sues an employee, and an employer on a respondeat superior theory, and subsequently settles with, releases, and agrees to hold harmless the employee, the employer is also effectively released from the case.
		Although the liability of Western is premised upon respondeat superior, the controlling fact in Mulroy's cause of action was the comparative negligence of Olberding and Mulroy.
		Specifically, these holdings establish that when a plaintiff brings a negligence action against an employee and an employer on a respondeat superior theory and subsequently settles with, releases, and agrees to hold harmless the employee, the employer is also released from the action.
	www.kscourts.org /kscases/ctapp/2004/20040820/91395.htm (2607 words)

	Bench & Bar of Minnesota
		Respondeat superior is a doctrine of enterprise liability that "attempts to link risks to benefits and hold accountable for risk-creating activities the enterprise that stands to benefit from those activities."
		Respondeat superior liability is not based on fault of the employer, but rather is imposed based on a policy choice that liability for acts committed within the scope of employment ought to be allocated to employers as a cost of doing business.
		Respondeat superior is a doctrine of enterprise liability, not a means to convert each enterprise into an insurer of its employees' sexual probity.
	www2.mnbar.org /benchandbar/2002/nov02/respondeat-superior.htm (3381 words)

	Respondeat Superior - When Is An Employee On The Job?
		The common-law doctrine of respondeat superior was established in seventeenth-century England to define the legal liability of an employer for the actions of an employee.
		It provides a better chance for an injured party to actually recover damages, because under respondeat superior the employer is liable for the injuries caused by an employee who is working within the scope of his employment relationship.
		The theory behind respondeat superior is that the principal controls the agent's behavior and must then assume some responsibility for the agent's actions.
	law.jrank.org /pages/9834/Respondeat-Superior.html (905 words)

	Gordon & Rees, LLP: Case Cites
		Consequently the court held that the ROC was not liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for Liu's damages.
		[3] Whether the ROC is liable under respondeat superior is crucial not only to the issue of the court's jurisdiction, but also to the merits of the appeal from the denial of Liu's motion for partial summary judgment on the wrongful death claim.
		We held that California's law of respondeat superior, not federal common law, applied to determine whether the tortious acts of Nigeria's employees were within the scope of employment for purposes of the tortious activity exception in the FSIA.
	www.gordonrees.com /cites/892f2d1419.cfm (7773 words)

	Fearing v. Bucher
		The first concerns whether the doctrine of respondeat superior, pursuant to which an employer can be held vicariously liable for the acts of its employee, can be applied to a case involving an employee's sexual abuse of a child.
		Thus, a complaint generally is sufficient to state a claim for vicarious liability based on application of the doctrine of respondeat superior if it states ultimate facts that, if true, would establish that an employee was acting within the scope of employment when the employee allegedly committed the acts that led to plaintiff's injury.
		Having concluded that the allegations of the amended complaint are sufficient to state a claim of vicarious liability against the Archdiocese based on an application of the doctrine of respondeat superior, we turn to the question of the timeliness of plaintiff's complaint.
	lw.bna.com /lw/19990504/s44382.htm (2814 words)

	Rawle & Henderson: Reports & Articles: Transportation Law Update: (Site not responding. Last check: )
		Although it is becoming more common for claims of respondeat superior and negligent entrustment to appear in a Complaint, plaintiff will be permitted to recover damages only once, under either the theory of respondeat superior or negligent entrustment.
		Generally, when a motor carrier admits that the driver was its employee acting within the course and scope of his employment, thereby satisfying the elements of respondeat superior, a claim for negligent entrustment should be dismissed.
		New Jersey and New York courts agree that when an employer admits respondeat superior liability, a claim for negligent hiring, retention and entrustment should be dismissed where there is no claim for punitive damages.
	www.rawle.com /Reports_Articles_Details.asp?fileID=88 (809 words)

	CCH Business Owner's Toolkit \| Respondeat Superior Liability
		One of the hazards of having employees use vehicles to perform work for you is possible respondeat superior liability.
		Unlike some of the other liabilities of having employees use your vehicles, you face respondeat superior liability even if your employees get into accidents while driving their own vehicles.
		In many respondeat superior cases, this may be your most viable option because accidents do happen while employees are performing duties within the scope of their jobs.
	www.toolkit.cch.com /text/P04_7335.asp (842 words)

	Untitled Document
		The legal doctrine of respondeat superior is also the basis for an employer's liability if one of its employees uses the company's technology to engage in securities fraud.
		Thus, respondeat superior under the standards established by the court will not be applied any differently to an employer merely because the method that their employees use to commit fraud is the Internet.
		Under the doctrine of respondeat superior and negligent retention, there are elements of foreseeability and negligence.
	www.bicklaw.com /Publications/e-respondeat_superior.htm (1941 words)

	ED85007: Lee Davis, Respondent, v. Lambert-St Louis International Airport and William Powell, Appellants
		Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer is liable for the negligence of its employees, even if the employer was not directly negligent itself, as long as the employee’s acts were within the scope of his duties to the employer.
		Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, it is the negligent or wrongful act of the employee—as opposed to the employee’s liability—that is imputed to the employer.
		In the last of the three cases, the Court explicitly declined to address the theory of respondeat superior after finding that the officer was protected by official immunity and that his employer was protected by sovereign immunity and the public duty doctrine.
	www.courts.mo.gov /courts/pubopinions.nsf/ccd96539c3fb13ce8625661f004bc7da/6592683e2a41c6d18625708100519ac1?OpenDocument (5764 words)

	Hospital Liability - Law Firm Sly James Firm, Trial Lawyers P.C. Attorneys Kansas City, Missouri
		Generally, hospitals can be held vicariously liable under theories of: (1) Respondeat Superior; (2) Apparent Authority; or (3) Joint Venture. Under some limited circumstances, hospitals can be held directly liable for their own corporate negligence.
		Respondeat Superior relies upon a direct employee/employer relationship between the tort feasor and the hospital. Respondeat superior is “agency-based strict liability.”
		Therefore, whenever there is an allegation that a hospital is vicariously liable under an agency or respondeat superior theory, the practitioner should develop factual support for as many of these factors as possible.
	www.slyjamesfirm.com /CM/HelpfulInfo/Hospital-Liability.asp (2060 words)

	OSCN Found Document:TEXACO, INC. v. LAYTON
		The basic inquiry in any respondeat superior case in which the specific act of negligence by the subordinate is admitted, is whether the superior had the right to control, or actually did control in some measure, the actions of the subordinate in respect to the transaction out of which the injury arose.
		In respondeat superior cases, the actual negligence is that of the subordinate, and the negligence of the master or superior is derivative only.
		However, as above noted, the doctrine of respondeat superior was not involved in that case, which was an action against the railway company for damages for personal injuries received by an employee in the course of his employment.
	www.oscn.net /applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=36606 (2608 words)

	State Bar of Texas \| Extending the Robertson Presumption to Leased Vehicles
		The presumption establishes the "course and scope" prong of respondeat superior liability.
		Sampson, 969 S.W.2d 945, 947 (Tex. 1998) ("Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer is vicariously liable for the negligence of an agent or employee acting within the scope of his or her agency or employment, although the principal or employer has not personally committed a wrong.").
		Harris County, 904 S.W.2d 650, 654 (Tex. 1995) ("Respondeat superior imposes liability on the employer that is responsible for the acts of his employee, acting in the scope of his employment ….").
	www.texasbar.com /Template.cfm?Section=pamphlets&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=8428 (2711 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)