This article is a companion piece to this vicarious liability video:
Terms like “Vicarious liability” and the “Doctrine of Respondeat Superior” might initially seem like inaccessible legalese, but they are actually both straightforward concepts that are important to understand. Vicarious liability is a form of indirect/secondary liability that establishes indirect legal responsibility for another person’s breach of their duty of care. This legal doctrine means that a third party who is completely innocent can be held legally responsible for the tortious conduct of a first party, because of the nature of the third party’s relationship with the first party who has breached their duty of care.
This is different from primary liability (an individual breaches their duty of care with their own actions) or joint liability (multiple parties breach their duty of care in conjunction with each other) because the vicariously liable party has taken no illegal action but can still be held responsible if they benefited from the actions of the primarily liable party. The most common relationship to which vicarious liability is applied is that of the employer-employee relationship.
This is because in order to prove that a third party is vicariously liable, it must be established that the third party has a certain degree of control over the primary party’s actions or means of achieving their actions. However, vicarious liability can also be applied to other situations where one person is paramount in the relationship and the other person is dependent, which is why parents can sometimes be found vicariously liable for the wrongdoings of their children (as discussed in
this episode of our ). subrogation podcast The Respondeat Superior Doctrine &
So, when does the Respondeat Superior Doctrine come into play? This doctrine is applied when employers are vicariously liable for the acts or omissions (omission here meaning a failure to act) of their employees when said employees are acting within the scope of their employment. For example: An employee hired as a forklift driver. While operating the forklift, the employee moves a large crate and in doing so damages a customer’s car. Because the employee’s actions were within the course of his employment (moving a crate using a forklift), the employer would likely be vicariously liable for the damages.
The Respondeat Superior Doctrine can become more difficult to apply when an employee’s actions are not as clearly within the scope of employment. For example, if a delivery driver stops to get gas mid-delivery and a tort occurs, this stop to get gas will likely be determined as a “detour” – a brief activity that an employer might reasonably expect to occur within the course of employment, and for which the employer can be vicariously liable.
Now let’s say that same delivery driver later stops at a bar and consumes a few alcoholic drinks. This would not be a “detour”, but would instead be considered a “frolic” – an activity NOT within the course and scope of their employment. There is no vicarious liability with a frolic, because the employees’ actions are outside the scope of employment and an employer is therefore not liable for the employee’s independent acts.
Subrogation Suits & The Purpose of Vicarious Liability:
The vicarious liability legal doctrine is meant to prevent tortious conduct from recurring, and to also give a greater insurance of compensation for the injured party. Vicarious liability also helps ensure that those who benefit from the activity that led to the injury also have a responsibility for the damage. This means that the employee responsible for the tort remains jointly liable in a situation with Respondeat Superior, meaning both parties can be held accountable for damages.
If just an employee is sued in a subrogation suit, that employee could seek indemnification back from their employer or bring their employer into the lawsuit if the employee’s actions occurred within the course and scope of their employment. However, if only the employer is pursued in the lawsuit, they cannot seek indemnification from the employee but they CAN argue that said employee’s actions occurred outside the course and scope of the employment, in the hopes that the employer can avoid liability.
Still have questions? Check out our insurance subrogation podcast “
” as well as our On Subrogation to hear subrogation lawyers break down complicated topics in easy to understand ways. collection of subrogation videos on YouTube