This essay will explain how the common law of respondeat superior
But, adopting respondeat superior
would eliminate the enormous amount of time and resources spent litigating and adjudicating the qualified immunity defense, as well as the hours that presently go into establishing or defeating Monell claims.
(337) With the rejection of respondeat superior
liability by the Eighth Circuit, a plaintiff would need to prove that a government entity actually caused a constitutional violation, rather than simply employing someone who violated a constitutional right.
First, the cases of inducement resting upon a respondeat superior
theory generally involve situations in which claims are brought against the officers of a corporation for authorizing their subsidiaries to take the actions that led to infringement.
Case law applies respondeat superior
even when the employee, through lack of judgment or temper, goes beyond his duty or authority and inflicts injury upon another.
Applying respondeat superior
principles to the foregoing facts, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling FedEx was vicariously liable for the actions of Allen and thus negligent.
doctrine of respondeat superior
in the cruise line context.
(28) The court rejected the standard fact-based agency analysis, holding instead that under general maritime law, there is no recognition of respondeat superior
liability of ship owners for the medical negligence of a ship's physician in treating the ship's passengers.
He addresses the definitions of tort, negligence, damages, indemnification, respondeat superior
, and summary judgment; questions about civil liability under New York law, in relation to wrongful conduct, the operation of motor vehicles, use of force, intentional torts, malicious prosecution, off-duty officers, corrections employees, punitive damages, firefighters, and other topics; and federal rights actions related to aspects like Section 1983, constitutional rights, supervisor liability, agency liability, pursuit, and violating a person's civil rights.
But lawyers like billing hours, so the case went to the Indiana Appellate Court which reversed the finding and held that Fabri-Tech was vicariously liable under the doctrine that an employer is responsible for the action of its employees during their employment (respondeat superior
, for Latin fans), regardless of the knowledge the employer had at the time of their actions.
In its current form, respondeat superior
provides an opportunity for an injured party to seek restitution from an employer for torts committed by an employee while fulfilling the mission set forth by the employer.
The Court famously articulated the prohibition on respondeat superior
liability in Monell v.