Respondeat Superior: Who Should Prevail?

Open, View, and/or
Download this Document

Total Length: 613 words ( 2 double-spaced pages)

Total Sources: 1+

Page 1 of 2

Wheels for Hire: Who Should Prevail?

According to the definition provided by Black's Law Dictionary (1990), the doctrine of respondeat superior means literally "let the master answer." Pursuant to the respondeat superior doctrine, "a master is responsible for want of care on servants' part, towards those to whom master owes duty to use care, provided failure of servant to use such care occurred in course of his employment" (Black's, 1990, pp. 1311-1312). In sum, the doctrine of respondeat superior imposes vicarious liability on employers for the negligent acts committed by their employees who are "performing work assigned by the employer or engaging in a course of conduct subject to the employer's control" (Mossman, 2013, p. 36). The origins of the doctrine can be traced to 17th-century English law courts and emerged based on the concept that in the course of servants' employment, it can be presumed that they acted pursuant to their master's authority (Mossman, 2013).

In the Wheels for Hire case, it is the defendant's position that although Sam Spade and Curly Hurley were their agents, the company was not responsible for the injury-causing collision because they had formal policies and procedures in place to prevent unauthorized vehicle use by employees which were knowingly circumvented by Hurley.

Stuck Writing Your "Respondeat Superior: Who Should Prevail?" ?

View All Our Example Respondeat Superior: Who Should Prevail?

Have A Custom Example Essay Written

In sum, the defendants maintain that the doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply in this case because the agent, Hurley, was acting outside the purview of her employment by allowing Spade to use a vehicle during his lunch break to visit his mother and Spade was not authorized by top management to use the vehicle for personal use or to be where he was when the collision occurred. Moreover, the Wheels for Hire company policy provides that all vehicles are exclusively for business use only.

Conversely, the plaintiffs argue that the doctrine of respondeat superior is applicable because Spade and Hurley were in fact agents of the company and their actions were a direct consequence of their employment at Wheels for Hire.

The essential point in this case then devolves to whether Spade and Hurley were acting within the scope of their employment when they colluded to remove a vehicle from Wheels for Hire's parking lot. According to Johnson (2011), "The principle of respondeat superior means that an employer is legally responsible for the acts of its employees if those acts are within the scope of their employment" (p. 72). In….....

Show More ⇣

     Open the full completed essay and source list


OR

     Order a one-of-a-kind custom essay on this topic


sample essay writing service

Cite This Resource:

Latest APA Format (6th edition)

Copy Reference
"Respondeat Superior Who Should Prevail " (2015, May 16) Retrieved June 4, 2026, from
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/respondeat-superior-prevail-2151109

Latest MLA Format (8th edition)

Copy Reference
"Respondeat Superior Who Should Prevail " 16 May 2015. Web.4 June. 2026. <
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/respondeat-superior-prevail-2151109>

Latest Chicago Format (16th edition)

Copy Reference
"Respondeat Superior Who Should Prevail ", 16 May 2015, Accessed.4 June. 2026,
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/respondeat-superior-prevail-2151109
   

Open, View, and/or
Download this Document
order custom essay example