Instruction
Respondeat superior can be explained as the doctrine that affirms the responsibility of an employer over the employee. In particular, the doctrine states that a master is liable for torts committed by the servants in the course of their service (Pozgar, 2012). Pozgar (2012) elaborates that; respondeat superior dose not purge random negligence doctrine and neither is it exculpatory. As such, the employer remains predisposed to any negligence of its own that can be easily proved without respondeat superior doctrine being involved i.e. negligence in supervision or hiring. Correspondingly, the employee remains liable to the victim of the tort to his or her torts. Besides, under standard agency law, the masters is usually entitled to indemnification from the employee for any damages suffered by the master from the employees tort i.e. if the employer pays the damage he is entitled to sue the employee for payment (Best & Barnes, 2007).
According to Best and Barnes (2007), respondeat superior relieves the victim of the tort from that need to prove how the master was directly negligent. Winrow and Winrow (2008) also note that the doctrine suffices to prove that the employee was negligent. In this regard, if the employer reasonably creates a work situation that the employees can neglectfully harm people, respondeat superior affirms that the employer is directly liable without any proof on the employer slackness. For instance, in the health service that trains practitioners and accords hem duties in well maintained health-care facility, but the care-giver carelessly hurts a patient. Accordingly, respondeat superior regards to the employees’ negligence that is deemed to be the employer’s: the health-care facility cannot take the (inconsistent) position that the care-giver is working for it when the care provider is effectively executing his or her duties, but not when she messes up in her duties. Since that wrong part happened when she was on the duties of the health service center, the health service facility is liable. Notably, respondeat superior can be looked at into dimensions, though not always, does it reach parallel conclusion.
Winrow and Winrow (2008) argue that it respondeat superior can be understood as an obligation about organizations. In keeping with Scott (2009), the servant’s act is the act of the organization, no matter whether some directorial decision makers would choose to decline it. Scott (2009) affirms that this understanding makes the tort rule relatively comparable to the contract agency rule which holds the management and the subordinate liable for contracts made for them by their subordinate’s, regardless of whether they like the contract or not. As such the master becomes liable for the health workers negligence since the subordinates negligence is deemed as the master’s negligence. Best and Barnes (2007) therefore, affirms that respondeat superior is the intersection of ordinary tort law and ordinary agency law. Arguably, a tort is no different from anything else done by a servant. If an employee comes up with a product, usually the product belongs to the employer, as such, if the employee enters into a contract; it is the employer who is bound, that is how the tort functions. Any negligence from the heath caregivers, by agency, manifestly is the employer’s and thus the ordinary tort law applies. Best and Barnes (2007) thus note that respondeat superior is a rule of enterprise liability which justifiably explains the actions that are organizations and those that are not.
In accordance to Pozgar (2012), respondeat superior can be implicit as a “no-liability” or vicarious liability omission to the normal slackness rule in torts. Normally, one component of negligence is getting that tortfeasors acted irrationally. At this point, an exception is made since employers and liable for the torts of the servants without fault. Pozgar (2012) further indicates that this view separates the employer with the worker and the worker’s negligence is therefore, not regarded and the masters. Scott (2009) also acknowledges that even though the cases regularly invoke “no fault” comprehension, which is usually confusing. Respondeat superior, according to Scott (2009) is not just a no fault doctrine. Pozgar (2012) argues that unlike “no fault” products liability doctrines, this doctrine always necessitates proof of all aspects of negligence. Perceiving respondeat superior as a “vicarious” liability, might be helpful and at the same time confusing. The terminology suggests that the master is liable of another party’s tort but provides no guidance on how and when the normal rule that tort liability necessitates committing a tort becomes suspended.
Scott (2009) argues that both “no fault” and vicarious terminology insinuates that the respondeat superior is in a way exceptional, hence further suggesting that the doctrine must be construed narrowly. Assumable, the rhetorical trick remains as the most fundamental reasons why the argument does not of its own infirmity. However, it has no significant explanation for when “exclusion” can apply. Scott (2009) notes that if the manager can be held liable vicariously, then why the work can’t be held liable “the tortfeasors?” or why should the fault be reverted in a detour and frolic context and not when the worker defy direct orders from the boss. From this point of view, justification of respondeat superior mostly depend on external justifications which seldom make sense or seem to assist in getting a solution to the actual case.
Most torts are often committed by institutions, and it is virtually difficult to sue a corporation or other party without invoking respondeat superior in a certain form. Pozgar (2012) argues that even in the exceptional areas where a tort liability without respondeat superior is possible are shrinking. Example is the motor accidents are progressively covered by “no faults” and the scheme that are non-tort based and medical practices and increasingly being institutionalized so that the doctors remains as an employee and not an independent contractor.
References
Best, A. & Barnes, D. (2007). Basic tort law: cases, statutes, and problems. New York, NY: Aspen Publishers.
Pozgar, G. (2012). Legal aspects of health care administration. Sudbury, Mass: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Scott R. (2009). The Law of Health Care Malpractice. Promoting Legal and Ethical Awareness, Pages 50-87
Winrow B & Winrow A. (2008). Personal Protection: Vicarious Liability as Applied to the Various Business Structures. Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health, Volume 53, Issue 2, Pages 146-149
