Respondeat Superior: Who Should Prevail?

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.

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 those cases where the acts are regarded as being under an employer's control, then the employer will be held accountable; however, if the acts of agents fall outside the scope of their employment, then the agents are personally accountable (Johnson, 2011).

Although both the defendant and plaintiffs provided a well-reasoned argument in support of their respective positions, it is clear that someone is a fault in this case and that individual is Hurley. Especially telling was Hurley's admission that she could "get in trouble" if the use of the vehicle.