respondeat superior

/raspondiyat s(y)apiriyar/ Let the master answer.

This doctrine or maxim means that a master is liable in certain cases for the wrongful acts of his servant, and a principal for those of his agent. Burger Chef Systems, Inc. v. Govro, C.A.Mo., 407 F.2d 921, 925.

Under this doctrine master is responsible for want of care on servant's part toward those to whom master owes duty to use care, provided failure of servant to use such care occurred in course of his employment. Shell Petroleum Corporation v. Magnolia Pipe Line Co., Tex.Civ.App., 85 S.W.2d 829, 832.

Under doctrine an employer is liable for injury to person or property of another proximately resulting from acts of employee done within scope of his employment in the employer's service. Mid-Continent Pipeline Co. v. Crauthers, Okl., 267 P.2d 568, 571.

Doctrine applies only when relation of master and servant existed between defendant and wrongdoer at time of injury sued for, in respect to very transaction from which it arose. Hence, doctrine is inapplicable where injury occurs while employee is acting outside legitimate scope of authority. Rogers v. Town of Black Mountain, 224 N.C. 119, 29 S.E.2d 203, 205.

But if deviation be only slight or incidental, employer may still be liable. Klotsch v. P. F. Collier & Son Corporation, 349 Mo. 40, 159 S.W.2d 589, 593, 595.

See scope of employment

- vicarious liability