Please, write a main discussion post about the below topic:
Topic: “The doctrine of respondeat superior should be modified to make agents solely liable for their tortious (wrongful) acts committed within the scope of employment.” Why or why not? Support your response with detailed information from the chapter.
Please, sections from the chapter in the file attached. Thank you!
Instructions for main post (Around 200 words) Please, write a main discussion post about the below topic: Topic: “The doctrine of respondeat superior should be modified to make agents solely liable for their tortious (wrongful) acts committed within the scope of employment.” Why or why not? Support your response with detailed information from the chapter (Citations needed for main post) Chapter: The Doctrine of Respondeat Superior The doctrine of respondeat superior is similar to the theory of strict liability in that liability is imposed regardless of fault. At early common law, a servant (employee) was viewed as the master’s (employer’s) property. The master was deemed to have absolute control over the servant’s acts and was held strictly liable for them, no matter how carefully the master supervised the servant. Although employers today are not masters of their employees, control is still a central concept to liability. This chapter’s Global Insight feature discusses whether nations that follow Islamic law recognize the doctrine of respondeat superior The doctrine of respondeat superior is well established in the legal systems of the United States and most Western countries. As you have already read, under this doctrine, employers can be held liable for the acts of their employees. The doctrine of respondeat superior is not universal, however. Most Middle Eastern countries, for example, do not follow this doctrine. Codification of Islamic Law Islamic law, as codified in the sharia, holds to a strict belief that responsibility for human actions lies with the individual and cannot be vicariously (indirectly) extended to others. This belief and other concepts of Islamic law are based on the writings of Muhammad, the seventh-century prophet whose revelations form the basis of the Islamic religion and, by extension, the sharia. Muhammad’s prophecies are documented in the Koran (Qur’an), which is the principal source of the sharia. An Exception Islamic law does allow for an employer to be responsible for an employee’s actions when the actions result from a direct order given by the employer to the employee. This principle also applies to contractual obligations. Note that the master is responsible only if direct orders were given. Otherwise stated, unless an employee is obeying a direct order of the employer, liability for the employee’s actions does not extend to the employer. Critical Thinking How would U.S. society be affected if employers could not be held vicariously liable for their employees’ torts? Underlying Rationale The rationale for the doctrine of respondeat superior is based on the social duty that requires every person to manage his or her affairs so as not to injure another. This duty applies even when a person acts through an agent (controls the conduct of another). Public Policy Generally, public policy requires that an injured person be afforded effective relief, and a business enterprise is usually better able to provide that relief than is an individual employee. Employers normally carry liability insurance to cover any damages awarded as a result of such lawsuits. They are also able to spread the cost of risk over the entire business enterprise. Application Today The courts have applied the doctrine of respondeat superior for nearly two centuries. It continues to have practical implications in all situations involving principal-agent (employer-employee) relationships. Today, the small-town store with one clerk and the multinational corporation with thousands of employees are equally subject to the doctrine. Determining the Scope of Employment The key to determining whether a principal may be liable for the torts of an agent under the doctrine of respondeat superior is whether the torts are committed within the scope of the agency. Courts may consider the following factors in determining whether a particular act occurred within the course and scope of employment: 1. Whether the employee’s act was authorized by the employer. 2. The time, place, and purpose of the act. 3. Whether the act was one commonly performed by employees on behalf of their employers. 4. The extent to which the employer’s interest was advanced by the act. 5. The extent to which the private interests of the employee were involved. 6. Whether the employer furnished the means or instrumentality (such as a truck or a machine) by which an injury was inflicted. 7. Whether the employer had reason to know that the employee would perform the act in question and whether the employee had done it before. 8. Whether the act involved the commission of a serious crime. In the following case, the court had to determine whether or not a dump truck operator was the employee of a concrete services contractor. The Distinction between a “Detour” and a “Frolic” A useful insight into the concept of “scope of employment” can be gained from Judge Baron Parke’s classic distinction between a “detour” and a “frolic” in the case of Joel v. Morison (1834). In this case, the English court held that if a servant merely took a detour from his master’s business, the master will be responsible. If, however, the servant was on a “frolic of his own” and not in any way “on his master’s business,” the master will not be liable. Employee Travel Time An employee going to and from work or to and from meals usually is considered to be outside the scope of employment. If travel is part of a person’s position, however, as it is for a traveling salesperson, then travel time is normally considered within the scope of employment. For such an employee, the entire business trip, including the return trip home, is within the scope of employment unless there is a significant departure from the employer’s business. Notice of Dangerous Conditions The employer is charged with knowledge of any dangerous conditions discovered by an employee and pertinent to the employment situation. 33–3e Liability for Agent’s Intentional Torts Most intentional torts that individuals commit have no relation to their employment, and their employers will not be held liable. Nevertheless, under the doctrine of respondeat superior, the employer can be liable for intentional torts that an employee commits within the course and scope of employment. For instance, a department store owner is liable when a security guard who is a store employee commits the tort of false imprisonment while acting within the scope of employment. Similarly, a nightclub owner is liable when a “bouncer” commits the tort of assault and battery while on the job. In addition, an employer who knows or should know that an employee has a propensity for committing tortious acts is liable for the employee’s acts even if they would not ordinarily be considered within the scope of employment. An employer is also liable for permitting an employee to engage in reckless actions that can injure others. 33–3f Liability for Independent Contractor’s Torts Generally, an employer is not liable for physical harm caused to a third person by the negligent act of an independent contractor in the performance of the contract. This is because the employer does not have the right to control the details of an independent contractor’s performance. Courts make an exception to this rule when the contract involves unusually hazardous activities, such as blasting operations, the transportation of highly volatile chemicals, or the use of poisonous gases. In these situations, strict liability is imposed, and an employer cannot be shielded from liability merely by using an independent contractor. Book (Reference): Clarkson, Miller, & Cross. (2018). Business Law (14th ed.). Cengage Learning