Vicarious liability
Vicarious liability is a legal principle that holds employers or supervisors responsible for the actions of their employees or subordinates, particularly when those actions cause harm or damage. This concept is founded on the doctrine of respondeat superior, which asserts that an employer can be liable for the negligent acts of employees performed within the scope of their employment. Key factors in determining vicarious liability include whether the subordinate's actions were related to their job duties, intended to benefit the employer, and executed during work hours and in a work-sanctioned environment.
This principle applies in various contexts, such as employers being liable for workplace harassment or parents being held accountable for their children's harmful actions. The scope of vicarious liability has expanded to include cases involving contract work and even product manufacturers linked to consumer injuries. However, the application of vicarious liability is not always straightforward; courts often evaluate the nuances of agency and intention behind the subordinate's actions. Landmark cases, like Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, have established important precedents regarding employer liability in cases of employee misconduct. Understanding vicarious liability is essential for both employers and individuals to navigate legal responsibilities effectively.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Vicarious liability
Definition: Legal concept that someone in a supervisory role, such as an employer or parent, may be held liable for harm done by their subordinates or employees
Significance: Under the concept of vicarious liability, supervisors may be held responsible for injuries or damage caused by the negligent acts or omissions of their subordinates, whether or not those acts or omissions are specifically authorized by the employers.
Vicarious liability is based on the doctrine of respondeat superior, wherein a supervisor can be held liable for harm done by subordinates while acting within the scope of their agency or employment. Criteria for whether such an action may constitute a vicarious liability include such factors as whether it was related to what the subordinate was hired to do, whether it was done with the intention of serving the employer in some manner, and whether it occurred in an employment-sanctioned time and location. The superior must have either actual or apparent agency in their ability to stop or rectify the damaging behavior. The intent behind the concept of vicarious liability is that the proper party must be held responsible when harm is done, even if that party is not directly involved.
There are many situations, both in business and beyond, in which a party may be charged with vicarious liability. Contractors may face vicarious liability if their subcontractors perform a job incorrectly or are found guilty of contract violations; however, a businessperson who hires an independent contractor typically cannot be held responsible for the contractor's actions. Parents may face vicarious liability when the actions of their children cause harm or damage. Employers may be liable vicariously for sexual harassment or workplace discrimination by an employee, even if that employee acts against the employer’s policies. Vicarious liability suits have expanded; for example, manufacturers of mobile phones whose use contributes to car crashes have been being charged with vicarious liability.
In Faragher v. City of Boca Raton and Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that an employer is responsible for sexual harassment or other unlawful actions of its employees, unless the employer had taken steps to prevent workplace harassment and employees failed to take advantage of preventive opportunities provided by the employer.
Vicarious liability is not always clear cut. Some of these murky situations include sexual abuse in institutional settings, such as churches, schools, or social organizations; medical errors; or negligence or harm by the employee of a franchise. Such cases often hinge on the court's interpretation of the criteria for liability, such as whether there was a motive to serve the employer or what level of agency a franchisor has over a franchisee.
Bibliography
Buckley, William, Cathy Okrent, and Cathy J. Okrent. Torts and Personal Injury Law. 3d ed. Albany, N.Y.: Delmar, 2003.
Chamallas, Martha. "Vicarious Liability in Torts: The Sex Exception." Valparaiso University Law Review 48.1 (2013): 133–93. PDF file.
Gish, Will. "What Is the Difference between Vicarious & Employers' Liability?" Chron. Houston Chronicle, n.d. Web. 3 June 2016.
Graham, Daniel A. "Mobile Apps within a Franchise System: The Vicarious Liability Risk." Franchise Law Journal 34.2 (2014): 213–21. Index to Legal Periodicals & Books Full Text (H.W. Wilson). Web. 3 June 2016.
Hall, Daniel E. Criminal Law and Procedure. 4th ed. Albany, N.Y.: Delmar, 2003.