Vicarious Liability - Respondeat Superior and Scope of Employment Flashcards
Riviello v. Waldron
Respondeat Superior and Scope of Employment
An employer is vicariously liable when an employee commits a negligent tort while on break. Restaurant employee was flipping a knife while talking with a customer and the customer lost his eye.
Fruit v. Schreiner
Respondeat Superior and Scope of Employment
An employer is vicariously liable when its employee drives negligently and causes an accident when the reason the employee was driving was at least partially to further his employer’s goals. Defendant employee was driving back from a restaurant where he hoped to meet some colleagues when he ran into plaintiff.
Employee Liability
Just because the employer can be sued doesn’t mean the employee is off the hook. The employer could implead the employee as a third-party defendant under indemnity or sue him after the first suit was resolved.
Traditional Vicarious Liability
An employee’s conduct was within the scope of employment if it was of the same general kind as authorized or expected, and the employee was acting within authorized time and space limits.
Agency Restatement Vicarious Liability
The Agency Restatement added that the employees conduct must be motivated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the employer. Some courts reject this for broader definitions, such as the tort was committed within the ordinary course of business.
Vicarious Liability and Fault
The employers fault is not relevant in vicarious liability cases. Also, if the employees legally responsible for a tort, the employee cannot be vicariously liable.
Enterprise Liability
Enterprise liability is a legal doctrine under which individual entities can be held jointly liable for some action on the basis of being part of a shared enterprise. Holding the enterprise strictly liable can defuse costs caused by the enterprise and encourage the enterprise to make safer products.
Serving Two Master
Restatement (Third) of Agency
Liability depends upon which employer is in the better position to take measures to prevent the harm, looking at which employer has a right to control the employees conduct.
Serving Two Master
Traditional View
The first employer is vicariously liable and the second employer is not, unless evidence shows different based on who had control of the employee.
Serving Two Master
Both Employers
Both employers are liable if the employee was acting within the scope of employment of both employers.
Serving Gratuitously
For an employer to be vicariously liable for the torts of a volunteer, the volunteer must submit herself to the control of the employer.
Hinman v. Westinghouse Electric Company
Vicarious Liability During the Commute
An employee is in the scope of employment during his commute if the employer compensates the employee for his travel time and commute expenses. Defendant employee was on his way home from work when he was in an accident with Plaintiff. Employer was vicariously liable.
Going and Coming Rule
An employee going to and coming from work is not generally within the scope of employment.
Exceptions to the Going and Coming Rule
- When the employee is on call, as long as the tortious act was otherwise in the scope of employment
- When the employee is required to drive his personal vehicle to work so she can use it for work-related tasks.
- When the employee has to do some work-related tasks during his commute.
- When the commute serves a duel purpose for the employee and employer.
Edgewater Motels, Inc. v Gatzke
Temporary Deviations
An employer can be vicariously liable for an employee’s negligently smoking if he was otherwise acting within the scope of employment. Defendant employee lit a cigarette while filling out expense paperwork and the cigarette started a fire.
