Respondeat Superior Means

Respondeat Superior
Name
Institutional Affiliation
Respondeat Superior
Introduction
The application of vicarious liability continues to draw massive debates as it lacks the undisputable and agreeable rationale to justify the imposing of such laws. The main obstacle to its justification is that the liability is imposed irrespective of any negligence or fault on the part of the hospital management or employers, which ostensibly conflicts with the practicalities of fault-based tort law. For many years, vicarious liability has been a major concern for hospitals including other health care facilities. There are two aspects of these liabilities: liability for nonemployees appearing to be an entity’s agent (agency), and liability for the actions of an employee (respondeat superior) (West, 2016). Because an entity will always work through the employees, nothing much can be done, in many cases, to avert respondeat superior liability. There is need for entities to be aware of ways in which nonemployees can be seen to be an agent of the entity to preclude the appearance of an agency. Using examples of the application of respondeat superior, this paper argues that liability lacks agreeable justification for its imposition and thus concludes to be unfair.
Meaning of Respondeat Superior
The practice of respondeat superior is a traditional justification for imposing liabilities of an employee’s misconduct upon their employers. As a form of vicarious (indirect) liability, respondeat superior is in contrast to personal liability where people are directly liable for their own civil wrongs or torts (Turin, 2016). The doctrine is applied based on the notion that if an instrument or a slave causes damage, then it follows that the owner of the instrument or the master of the slave has to be held responsible for the damage. In English translation respondeat superior means, “let the master answer” and this practice exposes the employers to unjustified liabilities that they personally do not deserve. In another translation, this doctrine simply means “he who acts through another, acts for himself (Natsvaladze, 2016).” Therefore, if an employee is involved in a case of fraud, the employer will be responsible for the damage provided that event occurred while the worker was on duty. This application can be criticized using examples of court cases. The liability assumes that the control justification presumes that an employer has failed in his duties to prevent damage from happening. This assumption blames the liability based on the employer’s fault whether o...