Respondeat Superior
Literal meaning: “Let the master answer.”
What does the Latin term "Respondeat Superior" mean in law?
Respondeat superior is a doctrine of vicarious liability holding that an employer is liable for the tortious acts of an employee committed within the scope of employment. The rationale is that employers who benefit from the activities of their employees should bear the costs of injuries those activities cause. For the doctrine to apply, there must be an employer-employee (master-servant) relationship, and the tortious conduct must have occurred within the scope of the employee's duties. The doctrine does not apply to independent contractors, and the question of whether an act falls within the scope of employment is often a key factual dispute.
Source: Torts · Legal Latin
Legal Definition
Respondeat superior is a doctrine of vicarious liability holding that an employer is liable for the tortious acts of an employee committed within the scope of employment. The rationale is that employers who benefit from the activities of their employees should bear the costs of injuries those activities cause. For the doctrine to apply, there must be an employer-employee (master-servant) relationship, and the tortious conduct must have occurred within the scope of the employee's duties. The doctrine does not apply to independent contractors, and the question of whether an act falls within the scope of employment is often a key factual dispute.
How It's Used
Respondeat superior is a core torts doctrine used when analyzing vicarious liability of employers for employee misconduct. It appears in discussions of agency law, negligent hiring, and the distinction between employees and independent contractors.
Example Sentences
Under respondeat superior, the delivery company was held liable for injuries caused by its driver's negligent operation of a company truck during a scheduled delivery.
The hospital was not liable under respondeat superior because the surgeon was an independent contractor, not an employee.
The employer argued that the employee's assault was outside the scope of employment and therefore did not trigger respondeat superior liability.