One of the most important ways in which tort law is applicable on a day to day basis for any business is through its employees. From the moment a business makes the decision to hire an individual, that person is connected to the company, in more ways than simply providing services for the organization. For this reason, a good personnel selection can avoid several legal problems for any employer.
The question of whether or not a company should be liable for damages incurred by its employees is the kind of speculation that provokes very different answers, depending on one’s personal view and one’s answer. For a consumer, the response is clear; of course, a company should be held liable for the actions of any employee. For the management of the organization, on the other hand, this situation depends on the circumstances. The company will try to reduce, to the extent possible, the number of situations in which the company pays for any damages resulting from the consequences of its employees’ actions.
The general rule would be that a person cannot be held liable for the actions of another. But in this case, tort law provides a solution based on public welfare, creating an exception to this general rule.
We need to consider that in some exceptional cases, it is possible to hold one person liable for the actions of another, if one is in a situation applicable to strict liability to a third party, which is called “vicarious liability.” Under this law, the main point of interest and that requires examination is not the actor that generated the wrongful act. The responsibility is not based on a simple fault.
According to the vicarious liability doctrine, an employer is responsible for the actions of an employee because the company is the responsible party of the employee that committed the wrongful act.
Does vicarious liability mean that an employer is liable for any tort action of an employee? Of course not! An employer will only be liable for an employee’s actions that were carried out by the employee based on the scope of their employment.
For example, say you own a pizzeria. For that reason, you need to hire a driver to deliver your pizzas. If the driver hits a pedestrian while delivering a pizza, the company can be held liable under vicarious liability. But, if the delivery person hits a pedestrian after one’s shift at the pizzeria is over, the driver is the only responsible party for the wrongdoing.
What elements help us determinate if the employer is potentially liable for the tort? This involves a case by case review. One aspect that can always help to answer this problem relates to the actions that the employee is directly responsible for.
Was the tort committed under the scope of employment? If the actor was carrying out the assignment that one was hired to perform, the employer could be held liable for the damages suffered by the pedestrian in the pizzeria case.
Also see: Legal > Why the Implied Warranty of Merchantability is a Tort and not a Breach of Contract