The determination of mankind’s actions and categorizing them as legal or illegal/criminal has existed for a long period of time now. In modern times, many advanced and formal ways have been developed especially in the United States and other developed nations. Many organizations and corporations have found themselves in legal tussles when it comes to the conduct of their agents or close associates and their subsequent outcome and liability thereof. This essay will attempt to distinguish between vicarious liability and corporate criminal liability as a result of negligent conduct of an employee in a given health care organization. It will also describe apparent agency and the impact which the status of the agent/employee and independent contractor has when it comes to the analysis of liability.
Vicarious liability can be defined in legal terms as the strict liability of a principal for the resultant misconduct of her agent or employee. It is a tort doctrine that seeks to impose full responsibility on one party for the negligence of another, usually, with whom the principal has a special or legal relationship such as an employer and an employee. This legal doctrine assigns or transfers liability to an individual who did not cause the injury directly. The doctrine takes effect when the agent is in line of duty and conducts himself or herself with such care as would be expected of a prudent person under similar situations. For example, if an employee in a health care organization gives wrong prescription to a patient and causes death, the conduct would be regarded criminal if the employee had the intention of causing harm to the client. However, if there was no apparent ill intention, then he or she could be found as having been negligent. Furthermore, the court may find such an employee as having intended the harm even if he or she had no such intention and would be convicted of a criminal offense. When an employee is found as having committed a crime and also found to having been negligent, it results in a civil offense.
Corporate criminal liability, on the other hand, is a doctrine that challenges the blind application of strict vicarious liability on principals given that the agents acted on purely criminal grounds. For instance, an employee of a health care organization who maliciously gives the wrong medication to a patient with an intention of causing death ought to be individually convicted of murder. The primary motive for the application of vicarious liability, therefore, is to challenge corporations to monitor and supervise their employees or agents in order to minimize the occurrence of crime. This is the classic justification of strict vicarious criminal liability and it is yet to be substantially challenged.
Moreover, apparent agency is a situation which occurs when an individual appears to have the right to carry out transactions on behalf of the principal when in real sense that may not be the case. A manager, who was recently demoted, for instance, can still attempt to transact business deals that he or she is no longer permitted to undertake since he or she is still known to long time customers who are unaware of the demotion. The victims of such an arrangement can still file a case against the principal especially if no prior adequate notification was made.
The status of the agent or an independent contractor plays a central role when it comes to the analysis of liability. An agent is regarded as acting on behalf of the principal and hence can hold him or her responsible for the decisions made in the course of executing duties as an employee. If an employee is involved in an accident, for instance, while driving a company vehicle and on assigned duty, then the principal is held responsible for the accident.
However, an independent contractor does not have any apparent authority and may not hold the principal responsible for his or her misconduct. For an independent contractor to prove liability, he or she would have to demonstrate that the maiden action was taken following direct order by the principal. It is under such a circumstance that the principal may be held liable.
The essay has clearly distinguished between corporate criminal liability and vicarious liability resulting from the negligent conduct of an employee of a health care organization. Furthermore, it has elaborated apparent agency and how the status of the agent and that of an independent contractor can impact on the determination of liability.