Introduction
Organizations have their regulations which they use to control the conducts of employees. Additionally, governments have policies that establish the legal frameworks within which organizations should operate. In the face of the law, different organizations have different treatments. Some organizations are treated as separate entities where employers do not bear any legal responsibility for the organization and its employees. However, some principles like the Respondeat Superior provide that employers are answerable to the actions of their employees which violate the legalities of the establishment of the organization (Thornton, 2010). Under this doctrine as reinforced by the US Supreme Court in 1909, an employer can bear the criminal liability of his or her employees who act contrary to the set regulations (Coderch & Ligüerre, 2002). However, the controversy arises when it comes to the application of the doctrine. The vicarious liability borne by the employers brings people to the question of the extent to which the doctrine is applicable and if there are exceptional circumstances under which the doctrine does not apply and employees are held personally liable. This essay will argue that the principle of Respondeat Superior is good for the management of organizations, but it places heavy burdens on employers due to an excessive negligence of employees in health care organizations.
Legal meaning of the doctrine of the doctrine of Respondeat Superior
The main principle that embodies the Respondeat Superior doctrine provides that employers are answerable to acts of negligence or omissions performed by employees under them (Burns, 2011). Fundamentally, the law holds that the employer is responsible for acts of negligence of their employees regardless of whether the employer is associated with these actions or not (Thornton, 2010). Therefore, this doctrine does not consider the affiliation of the employer with the acts of negligence, but it exclusively holds them responsible. Thus, employers cannot avoid the responsibility or criminal liability even if they train and supervise their employees because training and supervision have no relevance so long as their employees have been caught with negligence (Thornton, 2010). Employers have the full responsibility for controlling the conducts and the manner in which work is done in their organizations (Burns, 2011). Additionally, employers should have the rights to control the performance of their employees and to ensure that they act within the legal framework of the institutions (Lewis & Kleper, 2002). For example, in health care organizations, employers should control the way employees perform diagnosis as well as the treatment of the patients (Thornton, 2010). Therefore, there must be a dependent relationship between the employer and the employees. If the establishment of the relationship between the employer and the worker is on a contract basis, it is deemed independent and the doctrine is not applicable (Lewis & Kleper, 2002).
Examples of cases where the doctrine applied and analysis of whether it was applied fairly or not
The provision of the rule of Respondeat Superior is that the employer bears the responsibility for the misconducts of his or her employees even if they act negligently (Coderch & Ligüerre, 2002). For example, a medical physician raped a child, thus violating the professional ethics. The physician knew that such act was against the rules since he undergone training before he was hired. The plaintiffs filed the case and sued the boss for the tort of his employee. Because the employer should be liable for the negligence of his employees according to the rule of Respondeat Superior, he was charged with the crime. In this case, the doctrine was unfairly applied because the physician and the court itself were aware that raping a child is against the law. The court should hold the physician personally responsible for his torts because the law is very clear (d’Oronzio, 2003). Furthermore, the employer cannot be always present to keep oversight in the work of every employee.
In another case, an employee intentionally injured himself while on duty. His family sued the employer for not preventing personal injury against the employee. In accordance with the principle of Respondeat Superior, the employer was held liable, and the family expected to be compensated. The doctrine was applied unfairly since the employer does not have the capacity to protect intentional injuries. The employer cannot prevent an employee from taking some actions especially the actions that lead to personal injury such as taking poison or road accident due to careless driving.
Conclusion
The principle of Respondeat superior is a useful tool for protecting the violation of regulations in organizations. It ensures that employers safeguard the regulations and professional ethics in their organizations. The application of this doctrine in the health care institutions is particularly useful because they deal with sensitive services. However, the doctrine places unnecessary burdens on employees by holding them criminally liable for the negligence of others. Some employees may deliberately violate the regulations to put their bosses at risk particularly when there are labor shortages. Furthermore, employers do not have the capacity to prevent potential harm from international injuries. Therefore, as much as Respondeat Superior is helpful, the law should set exceptional circumstances under which this doctrine should not be applied and employees bear personal responsibilities for their actions.
References
Burns, J. J. (2011). Respondeat Superior as an Affirmative Defense: How Employers Immunize Themselves from Direct Negligence Claims. Michigan Law Review, 109(4), 657-681.
Coderch, P. S., & Ligüerre, C. I. G. (2002). Vicarious Liability and Liability for the Actions of Others II. InDret, (3).
d’Oronzio, J. (2003). Practicing accountability in professional ethics. The Journal of clinical ethics., 13(4), 359–66. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12793330.
Lewis, K., & Kleper, A. (2002). Legal issues confronting the occupational physician. Occupational medicine (Philadelphia, Pa.), 17(4), 625–635.
Thornton, R. G. (2010). Responsibility for the acts of others. Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center), 23(3), 313–315.
