Najnovije vijesti

Analyze the Legal Principle of Respondeat Superior

30/09/2022 | objavio Radio Gradačac

Healthcare is an industry in which the principle of Respondeat Superior has a major impact. Physicians and other health care providers are responsible under U.S. laws for their negligent acts in the care and treatment of patients. Respondeat superior is used by victims of medical malpractice to register not only the attending physician, but also others, such as hospitals and doctors` offices, for the negligence of their employees. respondeat superior, (Latin: “that the master must answer”) in Anglo-American common law, legal doctrine according to which an employer is responsible for the actions of its employees in the course of their employment. The rule originated in England in the late 17th century and was intended to prevent employers from evading financial responsibility for their employees` actions. Respondeat superior was first used in the mid-19th century to justify a criminal charge, first in England and soon after in the United States. Until the end of the 19th century, there were many precedents for pursuing businesses under Respondeat Superior. In 1903, the U.S. Congress passed the Elkins Act, which prohibited railroad discounts for companies that shipped large quantities of goods and included an explicit legal clause on corporate criminal liability.

An independent contractor may be engaged to perform work or services on behalf of a natural or legal person. The Independent Contractors Act does not classify the person as an employee. In fact, the party that hires an independent contractor has little control over the contractor`s activities. Independent contractors operate under their own direction and without the supervision or control of the party using their services, so it can be difficult to determine whether vicarious liability and higher principles apply in the event of bodily injury. Arguments based on incentives or cost dispersion can be advanced in a more cautious way that seems much more convincing, especially when we realize that respondeat superior is not an exception to the general rules of tort, but simply the obvious way to apply them to organizations. But tort law generally has an extremely limited view of citizens` responsibility to help each other. In particular, the basis of tort law is always the absence of liability, not the other way around: unless the plaintiff proves an obligation and its breach, the defendant has no unauthorized obligation to assist. Counterfeiting alone does not constitute tort liability. Crime has no principle that those who are injured should be compensated or that those who are solvent should help – if we systematically accepted these moral principles, we would replace tort with a universal health insurance system funded by progressive taxation. An offence requires a statement that the defendant caused the harm, not only that the plaintiff is injured and that the defendant is solvent. When it comes to tort, we are not the guardians of our brethren, and we are not allowed to be good Samaritans, citizens are not obliged to be patriots, fraternity is at most a business, not a legal obligation, and it is permissible to “act in the manner of Sodom”(1) until a special relationship changes.

(Incidentally, this analysis also helps explain why respondeat superior does not extend to corporate shareholders, despite the implications of the “take the bad with the good” analysis. In many companies, it is the shareholders who are the main beneficiaries of the illicit acts of employees: they receive the profits that the company makes because it has not spent money to prevent injuries. So you might think that shareholders should pay for the injuries caused by employee cuts. But that`s not the law. The law does not focus on who benefits from the activity that led to the offence, but on who committed it and, in this context, in particular on whether the employee acted as an undertaking when she committed it. The limitations of a law firm are often not obvious and are usually subject to significant manipulation by the law firm itself, its owners and lawyers. This flexibility is very useful for the economy as a whole, so the courts are reluctant to impose rigid definitions of what is a business and what is not. But one thing is clear: even without depriving business stakeholders of the right to set firm boundaries, courts can demand that they be consistent.

Companies are considered companies for better or for worse: a company should not be allowed to say that its employees are its agents when they do things that prove useful to the company (in retrospect), but reject them as strangers when they do things that turn out to be expensive (in retrospect) – even if it is only if it is only things Because if companies were allowed to play this kind of thing. of game “heads I win, tails you lose”, we would all be the losers. But shareholders are still considered not to be part of a company; This is one of the most fundamental rules of company law. There is therefore nothing contradictory about not holding shareholders accountable for the company`s crimes (or the crimes of the company`s employees), even if the shareholders are the most likely beneficiaries). Respondeat superior embodies the general rule that an employer is liable for the negligent acts or omissions of its employees. According to respondeat superior, an employer is liable for the negligent act or omission of an employee acting in the course and in the course of his or her employment (1). This is a theory of purely dependent or vicarious liability, which means that a determination of liability is not based on an inappropriate act of the employer. The fact that the employer could reasonably have acted by hiring, training, supervising and detaining the employee is irrelevant and does not provide a basis on which the employer can evade responsibility for the employees` actions (1). The basic requirement of respondeat superior is that the costs of tortious liability committed in the management of a company be borne by that company as the cost of doing business (2). Respondeat superior is NOT exculpatory and does not eliminate the doctrine of ordinary negligence.

Thus, the Master is responsible for any negligence of his own that can be proven without the use of respondeat superior: hiring or negligent supervision, for example. Similarly, the officer remains liable to the tort victim for his or her own unlawful acts. In addition, under the Standard Agencies Act, the gentleman is generally entitled to compensation from the staff member for all damages suffered by the gentleman as a result of the staff member`s offense – that is, if the gentleman pays damages under the superior, he has the right to sue the staff member to reimburse him.

Comments are closed.