Respondeat Superior is a doctrine that states that a superior officer can be held responsible for the acts of his subordinates. It is a legal concept that extends from Roman law and was first introduced in English Common Law in the 17th century, though it has its roots in ancient Roman law (Varney, 2015). However, there are a few exceptions to this rule. For example, if an employee acts outside the scope of their job or is against company policy, the employer may not be held responsible. Additionally, if an employer can prove that they took reasonable steps to prevent the employee from committing the illegal or wrongful act, they may also avoid liability. It is essential because it helps to ensure that employers are held accountable for when their employees commit illegal or wrongful acts. In general, if an employee does something illegal or wrong, their boss will be held responsible for those actions even if they were not directly involved in them. To achieve healthcare reform, retain competitiveness, and benefit consumers, the Antimonopoly Division must play a part. Antitrust laws defend and sustain competition to allow it to be used.
The legal theory of reaction at superior outlines that if an employee violates company policy while acting within the scope and context of their profession. This doctrine is based on the theory that the employer is better positioned to control its employees’ actions and prevent them from engaging in wrongful conduct. For example, if a company violates antitrust laws, the government may bring a case against the company for antitrust violations if the company has engaged in activities that restrain trade or competition (Varney, 2015). These activities may include price fixing, bid rigging, and market allocation. The government may also bring a case against the company if it has monopolized or attempted to monopolize a particular market. If the government brings a case against a company for antitrust violations, the company may be fined and may be required to change its business practices. The company’s officers and employees may also be subject to fines and jail time. The doctrine is essential in antitrust law because it allows the government to hold a company liable for the actions of its employees.
The doctrine is also essential in other areas of the law, such as personal injury law. There are several factors that courts will consider when determining whether an employee acted within the scope of their employment (Varney, 2015). The first factor that courts will consider is whether the employee acted in good faith. This means that the employee reasonably believed that their actions were in the best interests of their employer and not for personal gain. If it is proven that the employee did not act in good faith, then they may not be protected under the doctrine of vicarious liability. The second factor is whether the employee had the authority to perform the act in question. This usually comes down to whether the act was within the employee’s job description. If the employee was acting outside of their job description, they might not be protected under the doctrine of vicarious liability.
The third factor that courts will consider is whether the action was reasonably foreseeable. It indicates that perhaps the owner ought to have the ultimate result that the worker’s activities would result in the alleged injury. If the supervisor could not have properly predicted the employee’s acts, they may be exempted from vicarious responsibility. In torts, an owner may be held accountable for their workers’ negligent behavior. (Varney, 2015). In contrast, in employment law, an employer may be held responsible for the discriminatory actions of its employees, although there are some exceptions to this rule. The exceptions include when the employee acts outside of their duties or when the employer can show that they took reasonable steps to prevent the employee from committing the wrongful act.
The Response to Superior doctrine was applied in the case of the U.S. against Hatter. In this case, the government argued that the defendant had committed perjury by making false statements to a grand jury (Shenoy, 2021). The Response to higher theory was employed to assert that the defendant had breached it to the special prosecutor to respond to their inquiries, and that by presenting false claims, the defendant had infringed that duty. The court later agreed with the government’s reasoning and convicted the accused of perjury. This case demonstrates the legal principle that individuals called to testify before a grand jury have a duty to tell the truth and that making false statements can lead to a perjury conviction. Secondly, the Superior doctrine also got applied in the case of the U.S. against Gaudin (Shenoy, 2021). Here, the government argued that the defendant had made false statements on his tax return, and the court found that the defendant had indeed made false statements. The court found that the defendant had to provide a more specific answer to the government’s questions to avoid being convicted of tax fraud.
Finally, the doctrine of respondeat superior is a legal principle that holds an employer liable for the actions of its employees. This principle was applied in the case of Doe against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. While purchasing at a Walmart store, the complainant, Doe, was hurt by a Walmart staff (Shenoy, 2021). The employee had been acting recklessly and negligently, and Doe argued that Wal-Mart was liable for his actions. The court agreed, and Wal-Mart was held liable for the employee’s actions. This is because the employer is considered powerful over the employee and is responsible for the employee’s actions. In each case mentioned, the doctrine of respondeat superior got applied fairly because the philosophy is based on the legal principle of vicarious liability. It holds that an employer can be held liable for the actions of its employees even if the employer did not directly cause harm.
Antitrust laws are a type of government regulation meant to promote competition in the marketplace by preventing unfair business practices, such as monopolies. Monopolies and oligopolies are two types of monopolies which can lead to higher consumer prices. Antitrust laws prevent these practices from keeping costs low and encourage competition (Varney, 2015). They also make it illegal for companies to collude with competitors during mergers and acquisitions, which can cause higher prices for consumers due to less competition in the marketplace. The goal of the Antitrust Bureau is to protect American customers against unfair competition, exclusionary practices, and other unlawful acts committed by domestic or foreign corporations or entities that do business with the United States. Taming the offenders of the doctrine laws is tedious and can be an uphill task for the concerned institutions. However, the entrusted organizations have worked hard to ensure the rules are upheld across all the healthcare sectors. Therefore, it is important to acknowledge those efforts hence achieving the desired reforms across the board.
References
Shenoy, A., Shenoy, G. N., & Shenoy, G. G. (2021). Respondeat superior in medicine and public health practice: The question is–who is accountable for whom?Ethics, Medicine and Public Health, 17, 100634.
Varney, A, Christine. (2015). Antitrust and healthcare. Department of Justice.