BUSINESS LAW
The doctrine of respondeat superior (holding an employer liable for the actions of its employee committed within the scope of employment) has been the law for over two centuries in western countries like the United States. However, this doctrine is not followed worldwide. In Muslim countries that follow sharia law, the belief is that responsibility for actions lies with the individual and cannot be vicariously extended to others through respondeat superior.
How do you think our society would change if employers were not held liable for the torts of their employees? Would this be a positive change in your opinion or a negative one?
Solution Preview
Respondeat Superior
In a situation where employees were held solely liable for their actions and that employers were not liable for their torts would be rather different. To some extent one would consider such a world to be cruel and would lead to a significant increase in bankruptcy and debt cases. One explanation is that without employers being liable for their workers’ torts, individuals with huge debts would have to face courts and even then, the victim would not be compensated. Essentially, the respondeat superior was implemented as a secondary form of liability that may be considered in affiliations relating to agencies or ownership. As such, the real owner of the company or property that was involved in the tort offense has a level of responsibility in the offense as well.
(656 words)