Discuss Respondeat Superior including the following components:
Introduction that includes the thesis statement (Content criteria #1)
Describe the meaning of the legal doctrine, Respondeat Superior. (Content criteria #2)
Provide at least two examples of cases where the doctrine was
applied and analyze whether or not the doctrine was applied fairly to
each of the examples. (content criteria #3)
Conclusion (included in #1)
Your paper must be three to five double-spaced pages (excluding title
and reference pages) and formatted according to APA style as outlined in
the Ashford Writing Center. Utilize a minimum of three scholarly
and/or peer-reviewed sources that were published within the last five
years. All sources must be documented in APA style, as outlined in the
Ashford Writing Center.
Expert Solution Preview
Introduction:
This essay aims to discuss the legal doctrine of Respondeat Superior, which holds employers liable for the negligent actions of their employees. The application of this doctrine in different cases will be analyzed to demonstrate its fairness or unfairness in different situations.
Meaning of Respondeat Superior:
Respondeat Superior is a legal doctrine that translates to “let the superior answer.” It is a common law legal principle that holds an employer liable for the negligent acts of their employees, committed within the scope of their employment. In other words, if an employee causes harm to another person or entity while performing their job duties, the employer becomes liable for any damages incurred.
Examples of Cases:
One example of the application of the doctrine of Respondeat Superior is a case between Doe v. Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society. In this case, a resident in a nursing home was sexually assaulted by one of the nursing home employees. The victim sued the nursing home, arguing that it was responsible for the actions of its employee. The court, in this case, applied the doctrine of Respondeat Superior and held the nursing home liable for the employee’s actions since the employee acted within the scope of their employment.
Another example is the case of Farwell v. Boston & Worcester Railroad Co. In this case, an employee of the Boston and Worcester Railroad Co. was in charge of a train that caused damage to a bridge. Farwell sued the company, arguing that the company was responsible for the employee’s negligence. The court, in this case, ruled in favor of Farwell, applying the doctrine of Respondeat Superior and holding the company liable for the actions of their employee.
Analysis of Cases:
In the case of Doe v. Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society, the doctrine of Respondeat Superior was applied fairly since the employee committed the negligent act within the scope of their employment. Therefore, the nursing home was responsible for the actions of its employee, and the doctrine was rightly applied.
In the case of Farwell v. Boston & Worcester Railroad Co., the application of the doctrine of Respondeat Superior was also fair. The employee was tasked with operating the train and was therefore acting within the scope of their employment. The employer, in this case, was properly held liable for the employee’s negligence.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the doctrine of Respondeat Superior is an essential legal principle that holds employers liable for the negligent acts of their employees. Its application is crucial in ensuring that employers promote safety and accountability within the workplace. The above-discussed cases demonstrate that the doctrine can be applied fairly or unfairly depending on the circumstances of each case.
