Strict Liability

Application of respondeat superior hinges on two questions:

(1) Whether the tortfeasor is an employee or an independent contractor, and (2) whether the tort occurs within the scope of employment.

Ways of looking at cases:

(1) imposing strict L in situations where there is a good reason to control activity levels, or (2) imposing strict L in situations where the only actor who controls the risk is the actor on whom strict L is imposed (the "single-injurer" rationale).

Determining scope of employment:

(1) is the conduct of the kind that the employee is employed to perform? (2) does the conduct occur substantially within the authorized time and space limits? (3) is the conduct actuated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the master (employer)? (4) was the use of force by the employee expectable (as a possibility) by the employer? (if force is intentionally used by the employee against another, the use of the force is not unexpectable by the employer)

Workers' Compensation

(Harms to employees) Workers' compensation laws: Require most employers to provide compensation for on-the-job injuries suffered by their employees. Negligence and Recklessness: "Although an injured employee may recover from the employer without showing that the employer was negligent, the employee covered by workers' compensation loses the right to sue the employer for negligence." Intentional Torts: Workers' compensation laws do not bar suits against an employer for intentional wrongdoing. Co-employees: immunity enjoyed by an employer normally also bars actions against co-employees

Respondeat superior

(harms inflicted by employees) An (1) employer is responsible for an (2) employee's tortuous conduct (3) if it occurs within the scope of employment. The plaintiff must show that the employee committed a tort (usually negligence) for the employer to be held strictly liable (thus this is not a particularly "strict" form of strict liability).

Employee v. Independent Contractor:

A principal is not vicariously liable for the torts of an agent who is an independent contractor (Dad), rather than an employee.

Harm Inflicted By Animals

Harm done by wild animals, liability is usually strict. Harm done by domestic animals, liability is normally based on negligence. Wild animals (ferae naturae): The third Restatement provides in §22: (a) An owner or possessor of a wild animal is subject to strict liability for physical harm caused by the wild animal. (b) A wild animal is an animal that belongs to a category of animals that have not been generally domesticated and that are likely, unless restrained, to cause personal injury. Domestic animals: At common law, a possessor of a domestic animal is strictly liable for harm which results from an abnormally dangerous propensity of the animal of which the possessor knows or has reason to know.

Abnormally dangerous activities

Rest. (3d) §20: (a) a defendant who carries on an abnormally dangerous activity is subject to strict liability for physical harm resulting from the activity. (b) An activity is abnormally dangerous if: (1) the activity creates a foreseeable and highly significant risk of physical harm even when reasonable care is exercised by all the actors; and (2) the activity is not a matter of common usage.

Strict Liability

Strict liability is when defendants are held liable for injuries despite not having been "at fault" in any sense, such as negligence.