Respondeat superior is a Latin phrase, that translates to Let the master answer. This is a doctrine of law that holds an employer liable for the actions of their employees, done within the scope of active duty or scope of employment. This was established in the seventeenth century in England, to distinguish the legal liability of an employer for the actions of an employee. The same doctrine was adopted in the U.S. legal system and has since then been a key component of agency law. Under the doctrine, the employer is the principal, as they have employed someone (an employee) to work or do some action on their behalf. The doctrine was established to provide a better opportunity for an injured party to get compensation for damages, caused by an employee, who is working on behalf of an employer.
Under the doctrine, the employee is working on behalf of the employer. Thus, the actions of the employee are assumed to be those of the employer. The relationship between an employer and employee is called the agency. The employee in this circumstance is called an agent. The assumption behind this doctrine is that the principal controls the actions of the agent. Thus any actions of the agent are equated to the actions of the principal. The only underlying factor is that an agent has to be acting within the scope of their employment terms/job description. Beyond the terms which normally define activity, time, place and method, an employee can be held personally liable.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
This doctrine is a solid doctrine regarding legal control of organizations, especially multi-nationals. As it pushes employers to be cautious of the activities on-going within their organizations, This potentially increases the ethics and moral code of not only organizations but of individuals as well. However, there are limitations to this doctrine, in that organizations may assume no knowledge of an employee’s actions, irrespective of giving directive (if the actions led to harm). This exposes the employee to personal liability. Irrespective of this, I stand by the doctrine, as it acts as a check to organizations and their actions.
