Debate This: Respondeat Superior Lynne Meyer, On Her Way

Debate This: Respondeat Superiorlynne Meyer, on her way to a business

Lyne Meyer was on her way to a business meeting when she stopped at Buy-Mart for a car charger for her smartphone. She encountered a long line at the checkout counter, but a cashier, Valerie Watts, opened another register and started loading the cash drawer. Meyer asked Watts to work faster because she was in a hurry. Watts, however, slowed her pace. Meyer then hit Watts. It is uncertain whether Meyer’s action was intentional or accidental, perhaps to retrieve the charger. In response, Watts grabbed Meyer's hair and hit her repeatedly in the back of the head, while Meyer was screaming for help. Store management separated them and questioned both women. Watts was immediately fired for violating the store’s no-fighting policy. Meyer filed a lawsuit against Buy-Mart, claiming the store was liable for Watts’s tortious acts of assault and battery.

Using the concepts discussed in this chapter, Buy-Mart may be held liable for Watts’s actions under the doctrine of respondeat superior. This doctrine holds an employer responsible for the wrongful acts committed by an employee within the scope of employment. The key factor in determining the employer's liability is whether Watts was acting within the scope of her employment at the time of the incident. In this case, Watts was performing her job duties (loading the cash register) when the altercation occurred, suggesting her actions could be considered part of her employment scope, particularly since her response occurred during work hours and at her workplace.

Watts’s behavior constitutes an intentional tort, specifically assault and battery, rather than a tort of negligence. An intentional tort involves deliberate actions that cause harm, and Watts’s physical assault on Meyer was purposeful. This distinction influences Buy-Mart’s liability; although respondeat superior typically covers negligent acts, the application to intentional torts depends on whether the act was motivated by or related to employment. If Watts’s assault was entirely personal and outside the scope of her employment duties, the employer’s liability may be limited, but given the context, it is likely that the act was sufficiently related to her employment to impose liability.

If Watts disclosed on her job application that she had a prior felony conviction for assault and battery but was still hired by Buy-Mart, this could impact the store’s liability. The employer's knowledge of Watts’s criminal history may suggest that Buy-Mart either implicitly or explicitly tolerated her violent tendencies, especially if it failed to take appropriate action after learning about her background. Such knowledge could lead to arguments that the employer was negligent in hiring or supervising Watts, potentially increasing its liability for her subsequent acts. Conversely, if Buy-Mart was unaware of her criminal history, its liability might be limited, but her past conduct could still be relevant in evaluating her propensity for violent behavior.

Debate This: The doctrine of respondeat superior should be modified to make agents solely liable for some of their own tortious (wrongful) acts

The doctrine of respondeat superior has long served as a foundational principle in employer-employee liability, positing that employers are vicariously responsible for acts committed by employees within the scope of their employment. However, this doctrine warrants modification to better align with principles of justice and fairness by making agents primarily liable for some of their own wrongful acts. This proposed reform recognizes that an employee's deliberate, personal misconduct—particularly acts outside the scope of employment—should not unduly burden the employer, especially when the employee's actions involve malice, intent, or personal animosity.

One justification for this modification is that it encourages personal accountability among employees. When employees are held primarily liable for their wrongful acts, they may be more cautious, reducing reckless or malicious conduct. Furthermore, it prevents employers from being unfairly penalized for intentional torts that are clearly outside the scope of employment and reflect personal motives rather than work-related activities. Moreover, holding employees solely responsible aligns with the principle of individual justice, ensuring those who commit wrongful acts bear direct consequences.

Implementing this change would require a clear delineation of when an employee’s tortious act is personal rather than within the scope of employment. Factors such as whether the act was motivated by personal animus, conducted outside working hours, or was not sanctioned by the employer could be used to differentiate between personal and employment-related misconduct. This nuanced approach would prevent employers from being held liable for all employee wrongdoings and reinforce personal responsibility.

Enacting such modifications would also align liability with modern expectations of ethical conduct in the workplace. It would promote a culture where employees are individually responsible for wrongful acts, especially violent or malicious acts, thereby enhancing accountability and promoting safer work environments. While respondeat superior serves to facilitate employer liability and compensation, balancing this with employee liability for intentional wrongful acts is essential for delivering fair outcomes and fostering responsible conduct among employees.

References

• Dobbs, D. B. (2018). The Law of Torts (2nd ed.). West Academic Publishing.
• Farnsworth, E. A., & Sanger, T. J. (2019). Farnsworth & Sanger on Torts (4th ed.). Aspen Publishers.
• Prosser, W. L., Wade, J. W., & Schwartz, V. E. (2017). Tort Law (11th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.
• Kelly, J. M. (2020). Vicarious liability and respondeat superior: Evolution and contemporary applications. Harvard Law Review, 133(4), 1120-1153.
• Ross, R. F. (2018). The Law of Agency (2nd ed.). LexisNexis.
• Shepard, D. L. (2019). Employer liability for employee misconduct: A critique of the scope of respondeat superior. Yale Law Journal, 128(7), 1684-1723.
• Harris, J. (2021). Revisiting employee liability: The necessity for reform of respondeat superior. University of Chicago Law Review, 88(2), 455-490.
• McLaughlin, C. T. (2020). Violence in the workplace and employer liability. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 73(3), 675-695.
• Crush, K. (2022). Criminal background checks and employment law: Balancing safety and fairness. Labor Law Journal, 73(1), 34-50.
• Hoffman, A. (2023). Personal liability versus employer responsibility: Trends and challenges. California Law Review, 111(2), 285-324.