Principal's liability for torts

When is a principal liable for the acts of an independent contractor?

A principal is directly liable to a third person harmed by an agent's conduct if: i) The principal authorizes or ratifies the agent's conduct; ii) The principal is negligent in selecting, supervising, or otherwise controlling the agent; or iii) The principal delegates to an agent performance of a non-delegable duty to use care to protect other persons or their property, and the agent breaches the duty.

When is a principal vicariously liable for the acts of an agent?

A principal is vicariously liable to a third party harmed by the agent's conduct when: i) The agent is an *"employee"*; and ii) The agent commits a tort while acting within the *scope of employment*.

Can a principal be vicariously liable for torts committed by the agent?

A principal may be vicariously as well as directly liable to a third person who is tortiously harmed by an agent's conduct. The doctrine of vicarious liability asserts that a principal is liable for the acts of an agent, even though the principal is innocent of fault and not directly guilty of any tort or crime. Common torts include negligence, misrepresentation, false imprisonment, and battery.

When does an agent act within the scope of employment?

An employee acts within the scope of employment when either: i) Performing work assigned by the employer; or ii) Engaging in a course of conduct subject to the employer's control. When an employee acts independently of any intent to serve any purpose of the employer, the employer may escape liability.

Is travel within the scope of employment?

Generally, travel between work and home by an employee is not within the scope of employment. An exception exists when the employer provides the employee with a vehicle and asserts control over how the employee uses the vehicle. Travel required to perform work, such as travel from an employer's office to a job site or between job sites, is generally within the scope of employment

Can a principal be liable for intentional torts?

Intentional torts are not automatically excluded from the scope of employment. They may fall within the scope of employment when: (i)the conduct is within the space and time limits of the employment; (ii)the agent was motivated in part to act for the employer's benefit; and (iii) the act was the kind of act that the employee was hired to perform.

What is a detour?

Travel by an employee during the workday that involves a personal errand may be within the scope of employment when the errand is merely a detour (i.e., a *de minimis departure* from an assigned route).

What is the doctrine of respondeat superior?

Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, a principal may be vicariously liable for a tort committed by an agent acting within the scope of his employment. The principal is liable despite the absence of tortious conduct by the principal. This is also known as "derivative liability." If the agent is not liable, then the principal cannot be vicariously liable.

What is a frolic?

When an employee's personal errand involves a *significant deviation* from the path that otherwise would be taken for the purposes of performing work, the errand is a frolic. Once a frolic begins, an employee is outside the scope of his employment until he resumes performance of his assigned work.