logo

Respondeat Superior: Let the Master Answer

4 Pages645 Words95 Views
   

Added on  2023-01-19

About This Document

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.

Respondeat Superior: Let the Master Answer

   Added on 2023-01-19

ShareRelated Documents
Business Law
Running Head: Business Law Assignment
0
4 / 1 3 / 2 0 1 9
Student’s Name
Respondeat Superior: Let the Master Answer_1
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.
Respondeat Superior: Let the Master Answer_2

End of preview

Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.

Related Documents
Law of Torts Case Study 2022
|4
|717
|71

Law for Business Managers: Assignment
|12
|3552
|117

Empire Courier Case Analysis
|4
|744
|133

Practice of Business and Ethics- Extent
|6
|3168
|450

LST5CCL : Company and Commercial Law
|9
|3067
|111

Legal Aspects of Business
|5
|702
|28