The legal doctrine of Respondeat Superior means in Latin "let the master answer. Under Respondeat Superior doctrine employers become legally responsible to answer for their employees' and agents' wrongful actions when performed while handling official duties. This principle is fundamental in tort law, ensuring that victims can seek compensation from employers who are often better positioned to bear financial responsibility. Explore other important Judiciary Notes.

Examples of Respondeat Superior

• Delivery Driver Accident: If a delivery driver causes a traffic accident while making deliveries, the employer can be held liable for damages resulting from the driver's negligence, as the accident occurred within the scope of employment. 
• Medical Malpractice: A nurse administers the wrong medication to a patient causing harm. The hospital, as the employer, may be held liable for the nurse's negligence under Respondeat Superior. 
• Restaurant Incident: A waiter accidentally spills hot coffee onto one of the restaurant patrons who subsequently suffered burn injuries. Under Respondeat Superior the restaurant owner bears responsibility for the actions of his waiting staff. 
• Construction Site Injury: A construction worker works negligently with his machinery equipment to hurt a person walking by. When an employee performs careless actions at work, the construction company typically faces liability responsibilities through Respondeat Superior.
• Retail Store Accident: Staff members clear a floor area without warning signs that results in a customer's fall. Under Respondeat Superior the store takes responsibility when its employee displays negligent conduct.

Cases help illustrate how courts apply the Respondeat Superior. The following are some of the landmark judgments related to this. Some landmark cases include:

Joel v. Morison (1834): 

In this English case, the court held that an employer was liable for the actions of an employee who, while on a detour from his duties, caused injury to a 3rd party. The court reasoned that as long as the employee was acting within the scope of employment, the employer could be held responsible.

Automobiles Transport vs. Dewalal: 

The Rajasthan High Court held the transport company liable for the actions of its driver by stressing that the presumption exists that a vehicle is driven under the master's instruction or by an authorized agent. 

Savita Garg vs. National Heart Institute:

The Supreme Court of India held the hospital liable for the negligence of its doctors, reinforcing the application of Respondeat Superior in medical negligence cases.

Lister v. Hesley Hall Ltd. (2002): 

The House of Lords held an employer vicariously liable for intentional wrongful acts committed by an employee, establishing a clear connection between the employee’s actions and the scope of his employment.

Faragher v. City of Boca Raton (1998): 

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an employer could be held liable for the discriminatory acts of supervisors stressing on the importance of Respondeat Superior in protecting employees from workplace misconduct. 

Under the doctrine of Respondeat Superior employers remain legally responsible for what their staff members do in their professional duties. The principle allows victims to obtain financial compensation from such employers since they have superior financial capacity. Knowledge about Respondeat Superior matters greatly to employers and staff members because it determines responsibility limits while stressing the need for organized instruction and oversight at work.

Download Key take aways of Respondeat Superior