Respondeat Superior: Let the Master Answer

This assignment discusses the doctrine of Respondeat Superior, which holds a principal responsible for the torts and negligence of their agents. It explains the requirements for the doctrine to apply and provides two hypothetical situations where Respondeat Superior would be applicable.

Business Law
Running Head: Business Law Assignment
0
4 / 1 3 / 2 0 1 9
Student’s Name

BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT 1
In general, a person held responsible for his/her conduct but there are some situations
when another person held liable for the conduct of others. The rule that applies to in such a
situation is known as Respondeat Superior. The literal meaning of the term Respondeat
Superior is “Let the master answer” (Justia.com, 2019). In most of the cases, this doctrine
applies where an agency relationship exists between two people. As per this doctrine, a master
is responsible for the torts and negligence of his/her agent (Merriam-webster.com, 2019). The
doctrine is based on the belief that the economic capacity of subordinates i.e. agents is not so
good and they can be subject to extreme stress if directed to compensate to the third party for
their negligence. To prevent such situation a principle is asked to accept the liability of their
agents. This doctrine applies to the law of agency if two of the following requirements get
satisfied:
 A true master-servant relationship must exist in order to make the principal liable for the
act of servant as his own (master’s)
 The tortious/negligent act of agent must be within the given authority.
It means if an agent during the performance of his/her given authority commits some
negligence or another kind of tort then as per the doctrine of Respondeat Superior principle may
held liable for such torts committed by an agent. Here the term authority includes expressed as
well as implied authority. Here this is necessary to state that a principal may not be held liable
for the intentional torts of the agent as these kinds of torts do not come under the scope of
authority. In such a manner unintentional, a tort of the agent does not bring any liability unless
the principal condoned the tortious conducts (Thebusinessprofessor.com, 2019). Following are
two of the hypothetical situation where the doctrine of Respondeat superior will apply.

BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT 2
 The truck drivers who work under the employment of trucking company are usually an
agent of those companies. When a truck driver commits some negligent conduct then the
other party may held the truck company liable for such negligence. The plaintiff in such
cases can demand the damages from the principal i.e. trucking company. In some of the
cases, such companies contract with drivers and held them, an independent contractor. In
such a situation, the third party may not ask damages from the company as the same do
not remain principal of drivers anymore.
 The second situation is focused on hospitals. In cases of hospitals, doctor act as an agent
of the hospital. Many of the times hospitals stall consist of some individual licensed
physicians such as doctors, nurses and nurse practitioners. The hospital may held liable
for the negligence of such health practitioners when doctors and nurses act within the
area of implied authority and represent the hospital as their principal. In such cases, if a
patient faces any physical or other loss because of the negligence of healthcare
professionals then they may held the hospital liable for such conduct under the purview
of Respondeat Superior doctrine.

BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT 3
References
Justia.com. (2019). Vicarious Liability/Respondeat Superior. Retrieved From:
https://www.justia.com/injury/negligence-theory/vicarious-liability-respondeat-superior/
Merriam-webster.com. (2019). Respondeat Superior. Retrieved From: https://www.merriam-
webster.com/legal/respondeat%20superior
Thebusinessprofessor.com. (2019). Principal Liable for Torts of an Agent. Retrieved From:
https://thebusinessprofessor.com/knowledge-base/principal-liable-for-torts-of-an-agent/