Respondeat Superior

When we talk about liabilities, we must also talk about Vicarious Liability. Vicarious liability is when someone who didn’t directly cause harm is held responsible because of their legal relationship with the person who did cause harm. It means that the employer can be held liable for their employee’s actions while the employee is working.

The idea of vicarious liability has developed through legal cases, but the basic idea is that the employer, who gave instructions to the employee, is more financially capable of paying for damages than the employee. Two important legal sayings related to vicarious liability are “Qui Facit Per Alium Facit Per Se” and “Respondeat Superior.”

What is the Doctrine of Respondeat Superior?

The concept of vicarious liability originated in the United States and comes from a Latin term that means “Let the master answer.” This doctrine was introduced to address subordinates’ limited financial capacity and hold superiors like employers or masters accountable for their irresponsible behaviour. 

Respondeat superior holds employers liable for the acts of their employees. Under this doctrine, employers can be held responsible for their employees’ negligence or wrongful actions that occur within the scope of their employment.

The doctrine of respondeat superior allocates the risks normally associated with the business to the appropriate party.

Under respondeat superior doctrine, when it applies, both the employer and the master can be held responsible for the negligent actions or omissions of their employees or servants that occur during their employment. However, there must be a recognized relationship between the superior and the subordinate for the liability to be imposed on the superiors.

Actions carried out by employees within the scope of their employment and by agents with the implied or express authority of the employer or master can result in vicarious liability.

Essential Ingredients of the Doctrine of Respondeat Superior

Simply relying on the “respondeat superior” maxim does not automatically protect an employee from paying damages or being held accountable. 

Two requirements need to be fulfilled for the smooth application of this principle. 

• First, it is crucial to establish a true relationship between the employee and the employer or the servant and the master. 
• Second, the wrongful act must be committed within the scope of employment.

It’s important to note that the liability of a master or employer is not limited to acts explicitly authorized by them. They can also be held responsible for torts committed by their employees or servants during the course of employment.

In a case, the court rejected the argument based on a “Contract of Service,” which refers to a temporary agreement for services. The court held that the hospital, as the controlling authority, had a duty towards the patients and couldn’t be exempted from liability due to lack of care. Therefore, the hospital, as the principal, was held accountable under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

How to Determine the Employee and Employer Relationship for Application of Respondeat Superior

An act is considered to be done in the course of employment if it is either a wrongful act authorized by the employer or a wrongful and unauthorized way of performing an act that the employer authorized. It is important to have an employee and employer relationship for the application of the respondeat superior doctrine.

However, to understand the liability in such cases, examining the factors that establish such a relationship is necessary. Various tests have been developed to determine this relationship, and one important test in modern times is the “hire and fire” test.

Tests for Determination of Relationship for Application of Respondeat Superior

The Direction and Control Test

To distinguish between a master-servant relationship and that of independent contractors, the key factor is the level of direction and control exercised by the masters. The masters’ authority to give instructions and command the agent’s actions during employment is what establishes their liability for the acts of their servants.

However, this is not the case with independent contractors who are hired for their services. While some directions may be given, there is no direct control over their actions. 

For instance, when you hire a taxi, you can provide directions to the driver, but you cannot control how they choose to drive or which route to take. Similarly, independent contractor exercises their own discretion in matters that are not explicitly specified beforehand. 

You can refer to the specific case for more detailed information about the distinction between an independent contractor and an employee.

The Hire and Fire Test

In recent years, the traditional ‘control’ test for determining the relationship of ‘master and servant’ has lost its credibility. It cannot be strictly applied in every case. While the right of control remains an important factor where applicable, it is not the sole consideration for establishing the master-servant relationship. The ‘hire and fire’ test has gained significance in recent times.

The ‘hire and fire’ test suggests that an employee or servant can be dismissed if they engage in unauthorized actions. Therefore, apart from control, what sets apart the master-servant relationship from that of an independent contractor is the ability to terminate the employee or servant if they engage in prohibited activities.

The case of Cassidy v. Ministry of Health can be referred to when studying the control test. In this case, the court determined that the control test examines whether the employer actually exercises control over the employees’ actions and methods.

Meaning “Course of Employment” for Application of Respondeat Superior

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, the “course of employment” refers to the legal consideration of all circumstances that may occur during the performance of a person’s job, particularly when specific objectives are given by the employer to the employee. The act must be done during the course of employment for the application of the doctrine of respondeat superior.

In S. S. Manufacturing Co. v. Bai Valu Raja AIR 1958 SC 881, the court established certain propositions regarding the interpretation of the expression “in the course of employment.” 

They are as follows: 

• Generally, a workman’s employment does not begin until they reach the place of employment, and it does not continue once they have left the place of employment; 
• Typically, the journey to and from the place of employment is not considered part of the “course of employment”; 
• However, these two positions are subject to the concept of “notional extension” of the employer’s premises, which may include the areas the workman passes through while going to or leaving the actual workplace. There may be a reasonable extension in both time and place, and a workman may be considered “in the course of employment” even if they have not reached or has already left the employer’s premises; 
• The facts and circumstances of each case must be carefully examined to determine whether the accident occurred within and in the course of employment, taking into account the theory of notional extension. 

Based on the first two propositions, it cannot be said that the deceased received injuries in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.

In Mackinnon. Mackenzie & Co. (P). Ltd. v. Ibrahim Muhammad. Issak, AIR 1970 SC 1906, the court held that for an injury to fall within the scope of the act, it must arise both “out of” and “in the course of” employment. The phrase “in the course of employment” refers to the work that the employee is employed to do and its incidental duties. The phrase “arising out of employment” means that the injury resulted from a risk inherent in the duties of the service, which the workman would not have suffered if not engaged in the duties owed to the master. In other words, a causal relationship must be between the accident and the employment. 

The expression “arising out of employment” is not limited to the nature of employment alone but encompasses its conditions, obligations, and incidents. If the workman is exposed to a special danger due to any of these factors, the injury would be considered to have arisen out of employment. In summary, if the accident occurred due to risk inherent in the employment, the claim for compensation should be successful unless the workman has exposed themselves to additional peril through imprudent actions.

Negligent and Intentional Torts

An important question to consider is whether the legal doctrine of respondeat superior applies to both negligent and intentional torts. The answer is yes. 

In the case of negligent acts or torts, it is presumed that the employer either directed the employee or granted them a certain degree of autonomy in carrying out their work. If the employee makes wrong choices while exercising this autonomy, the employer can be held liable for those choices. If dissatisfied with the employee’s choices, the employer can restructure or intervene. 

On the other hand, in the case of intentional torts or acts, the court is less likely to attribute liability to the employer. The presumption is that employees would not intentionally harm customers or others, and if an employee does so, it is assumed that they acted on their own, not on behalf of the employer. However, if it can be shown that the employer authorized or encouraged such intentional acts, the employer may be held liable.

It is important to note that even if the employer hires an employee with a history of committing certain offences, and if that employee acts negligently, the employer can still be held accountable.

Case Laws on Doctrine of Respondeat Superior

Automobiles Transport vs. Dewalal

In the case of Automobiles Transport vs. Dewalal and others, the Rajasthan High Court held the Automobiles Transport Company liable for its servant’s actions during employment and applied the doctrine of respondeat superior. There is a presumption that a vehicle is driven under the master’s instruction or by an authorized agent or servant. The appellant (the defendant) is responsible for proving that this presumption is unwarranted and not verified. 

The argument that the driver was not directed to take a specific route did not convince the court, as expecting such instructions is unrealistic. 

For example, if there is a roadblock in one direction, the driver should wait rather than moving in the opposite direction to carry out their work. Failure to prove such a requirement would lead to the appellant’s liability under the principles of vicarious liability and the doctrine of Respondeat Superior.

Savita Garg vs. The Director, National Heart Institute

In the case of Smt. Savita Garg vs. The Director, National Heart Institute, the Supreme Court held that in an employment contract, the hospital is the principal party responsible for the actions of its agent, such as one of its doctors. The hospital must justify to the court and the complainant that there was no negligence or recklessness on their part and that they acted with due care and caution. 

As the hospital is in a better position to provide information about the treatment administered, failure to disclose such information would make them liable. In cases of medical negligence, genuine human mistakes may absolve liability if it is a case of an honest mistake. However, negligence cannot be excused.

Lloyd v. Grace Smith & Co.

In the case mentioned, Mrs. Lloyd sought advice from the solicitors, Grace, Smith & Co., regarding her property. The firm’s managing clerk advised her to sell the cottages and sign what she believed were sale deeds. However, these deeds were actually gift deeds in favour of the managing clerk himself. 

The House of Lords unanimously ruled that the firm was responsible for the fraudulent actions of their agent, the managing clerk, as per the respondeat superior doctrine. Even though the managing clerk was acting for his own benefit and the firm did not know about the fraud, they were held liable because the managing clerk was acting within his apparent or ostensible authority in the course of the firm’s business.

The main outcome from this case is that when a servant or agent acts within the scope of their employment or authority, the principal or employer will be held liable, even if the servant acted for their own personal gain rather than the principal’s benefit.

Morris v. C.W. Martin & Sons

In theis case, C.W. Martin & Sons were entrusted with a coat for cleaning. Their servant, Morrisey, who was responsible for cleaning the coat, instead stole it. The Court of Appeal ruled that the act of the servant in stealing the coat was a wrongful act committed during the course of his employment, and therefore, the master (C.W. Martin & Sons) could be held liable for it.

This case highlights that if an employee carries out a dishonest act within the scope of their employment, the employer can be held responsible for the employee’s actions. This is because the employer entrusted the employee with the task. However, it is important to note that if goods in the possession of the master (employer) are stolen by a servant to whom the goods were not entrusted, the situation would be different, and the master may not be held liable.

Poland v. Parr & Sons

In this case, a carter mistakenly believed that some boys were stealing sugar from his employer’s wagon. In an attempt to protect the sugar, he struck one of the boys, causing him to fall and be run over by the wagon, resulting in the loss of his leg. It was argued that although the carter’s actions were excessive, they were not so excessive as to be considered outside the scope of his employment. Therefore, the employer would be held liable.

In this case, the servant had an implied authority to protect his master’s property. However, if excessive force is used in carrying out this duty during the course of employment, it can make the employer liable for the consequences.

Century Insurance Co. v. Northern Ireland Road Transport Board

In this case, while working under his employer, the driver of a petrol lorry was transferring petrol from the lorry to an underground tank. In the process, the driver lit a match to light a cigarette and carelessly threw it on the floor, resulting in a fire and explosion that caused damage to L’s property. The court determined that although the driver lit the match for his own personal enjoyment, it was still considered a negligent method of conducting the assigned work. Therefore, as the act occurred during the course of employment, the employers were held liable for the driver’s negligence.

In situations where a servant’s negligent actions during the performance of their duties result in harm to a third party, the employer can be held liable for the consequences of their employee’s negligence.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the doctrine of respondeat superior, or vicarious liability, holds employers responsible for the acts of their employees or servants during employment. This doctrine is founded on the principle of allocating risks to the business and controlling the behaviour of superiors. 

To establish liability under respondeat superior, two prerequisites must be proven: a true employer-employee or master-servant relationship, and the tortious act must be within the scope of employment.