Respondent superior was derived from a Latin word rehs-pond-dee-at superior which stands for “let the master answer,” a major policy in the law of agency that states that an employer is liable of the activities of his or her or its agent (worker) in the path of employment. Therefore, an agent who gesticulate an accord to purchase products for his employer in the name of the boss can generate a combinational contract between the seller and the employer (Dornfeld, 2002). Another good example is when a delivery motor vehicle driver ignorantly hits a child in the street; the firm for which the driver is employed will be responsible for the injuries. Therefore, when an accident occurs while tackling an explosive involved in the work issued to such an individual, the employee is always liable for such loss (Dornfeld, 2002). That is where the Latin word that means ‘let the master answer,’ came from.
The ultimate aim of the policy is to make the superior liable for ensuring that workers can undertake the duties they were employed for, to train workers in legal and ethical customs, and to monitor workers to ensure they are doing their duties correctly (Pozgar, 2012). Failure to meet these requirements means the superior may be responsible for the activities of an incompetent superior. In other words, when an employee gets involved in such accidents while on duty, the employer is observed as the failure. There are several examples of such cases that were reported and tried in the supreme courts of United States (Hanson, 2001).
To begin with, there is case 9810-07146; CA A107956 which was an appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County where the judge was Thomas Christ. The case was conducted on September 18, 2000 (Pozgar, 2012). The appellant of the case was Gerald C. Doblie who was accompanied by Doblie and Associates while the respondent was Alan Gladstone who was accompanied by Paul R. Xochihua and Abbott, Davis, Rothwell, Nullin and Earle, P.C. Note that the respondent and all his team were employees at the Versarail Systems, Inc. (VSI) where Gerald C. Doblie was their employer. The claimer brought the tort action in court to recuperate from his manager and his employer, Mr. Doblie for having sustained injuries after the manager beat him (Hanson, 2001). The plaintiff employer opted for outline ruling, claiming that the elite needs of the workers’ reimbursement laws barred tort claims of the claimant. The court concurred and affirmed the appeal (Dornfeld, 2002).
The respondent worked as a painter for the defendant and on a certain day, the respondent was involved in a dispute with his supervisor, McNair. During the dispute, McNair hit the respondent on the side of the head and the respondent was quick to report the matter to higher authority at VSI offices (Pozgar, 2012). After some days, the plaintiff, McNair, a VSI supervisor and another higher-ranking VSI official met to talk about the event and a suitable route of action. Therefore, the respondent was only compensated for his injuries but he felt it was not a fair treatment, so he decided to take the matter to court (Hanson, 2001). During the initial case, the respondent won the case but the defendant decided to appeal it again. During the case, the respondent argued that he was an employer and was hurt while at duty meaning that his employer McNair was to take charge according to Respondent superior doctrine. Finally, the defendant carried the day. In this case, the respondent superior doctrine was fairly implied according to ORS 656.156(2), of the statute because the respondent was contented with the outcome.
Another case was held on September 14, 2001 in the case number 85, 611 at the Court of Appeals of the State of Kansas. Pierron, Mulroy sued Duane Olberding and Western Resources Inc. the Plaintiff Mulroy alleged that on April 15, 1997, Olberding drove his vehicle while drunk causing an automobile accident and leading to individual injuries and destruction of Mulroy’s property (In the Court of Appeals of the State of Kansas, 2001). Mulroy asserted that he was an employee of the Western and that Olberding was involved in the incident while on his specified duty in the company. Western deprived of this allegations in its response and claimed Olberding’s injuries and destructions were caused by his own carelessness (Pozgar, 2012). Western and Mulroy sought to find out whether the doctrine of respondeat was applicable. However, eventually, the case was not determined immediately because it was controversial in the sense that Mulroy sued both Olberding and Western for destruction of the vehicle while Western defendant itself against the allegations as well as suing Olberding for carelessness and being drunk while on duty. Olberding on the other hand defendant himself by stating that he was not drunk and that the accident occurred normally just like any other accident (In the Court of Appeals of the State of Kansas, 2001). He also denied the allegation that he was working for Western at the time of the incident therefore complicating the case. The judgment was fair in the sense that the case was too complex and required a lot of time to come to conclusion. Therefore, postponing it was a fair deal.
References
Dornfeld, O. R. (2002). “Tort Liability in German School Law”. Law and Contemporary Problems. Duke University School of Law, 20 (1): 72–79.
Hanson, C. R. (2001). In the Court of Appeals of the State Of Oregon. Web.
In the Court of Appeals of the State of Kansas, (2001). Web.
Pozgar, G. (2012). Legal aspects of health care administration (11th ed.) Sudbury. Massachusetts: Jones and Bartlett Learning.