Respondeat Superior - Research Paper Example

?Respondeat Superior College Introduction The doctrine of respondeat superior got its origin in England. It was established to clearly state the legal liability of an employer for the actions of an employee. The United States of America later adopted the doctrine and has been an element of agency law. It gives a way for a complainant who got injured or affected in any other way at the course of employee duty to recover damages, because under this doctrine, the employer is liable for the damages caused by an employee while undergoing duty at the place of work. The paper will analyze the importance of these legal doctrines, the role it has played in the employment sector as well as the effect it has had in the past and challenges that come along with application of the doctrine. The legal relationship between an employer and an employee is called agency. The name principal comes in cases where the employer appoints someone to act on his behalf. The agent is therefore a person who does the work for the employer. The principal behind respondeat superior is that the principal controls the agent's behavior and therefore should assume some responsibility for the agent's actions (Dane & Daniel, 2009). Respondeat superior is a Latin word that means "let the master answer” it is a legal word which means that an employer is answerable for the actions of employees done within the course of their duty (Lauren, 2010). This is also referred to as “Master-Servant Rule". This rule is recognized in civil law jurisdictions as well as common law. It implies that the superior will be answerable or rather responsible in case the employee omit or commit any other act while undergoing the daily routine of work. In application, it simply means that in practice, an employer/employee relationship must be established, meaning that neither the employer nor employee can work independently but rather both must be answerable to one another. The act referred must have been committed within the work vicinity in the right time and while undergoing the specific defined duty that is assigned to an individual (Thornton, 2010). This doctrine was in the past applied in master-servant and employer-employee relationships. In case the servant or the employee commits an offence that is in breach of this doctrine, he himself or his boss may be liable for the acts given that the act was committed within the area one is employed. Whoever was offended that is the third party may therefore take a legal action against the employee or the employer (Dane & Daniel, 2009). This action taken by the third party would be based on the direct responsibility of the servant or the master. Third party move to take action against the master or employer will be based on vicarious liability theory whereby you can be held liable for the action of another. Respondeat superior doctrine is mostly applied when it comes to Employer/employee relationship and issues that touches on them. It is however not limited only to employer/employee relationship but is also used in relationship of the agency whereby the principle become responsible for the actions committed by the agent despite the fact that he was not directly involved in such acts (Lauren, 2010). There are though the facts to be consider which includes whether the act was committed within the time and space limits of the agency? Whether the offense was incidental to, or of the same general nature as the responsibilities and the agent is authorized to perform? And finally, whether the agent acts by any standards tend to benefit the principal by committing the act? The extent to which these are dealt with in the affirmative determines the extent to which the doctrine can be effected. Common law draws the difference between civil and criminal forms of respondeat superior (McNary, 2011). The first case involves Frank Mitchell, he fell sick and he went for treatment at Methodist hospital. The doctor found him to be suffering from myocardial infarcation and he went through a surgery of cardiac catheterization and placement of a cardiac stent (Nursing Law's Regan Report, 2010). During his stay in the hospital, the nurses put an IV catheter in one of his arms. After he was discharged, the fever started developing and he starts feeling some pain in the left hand. He went back to the hospital and he was given Motrin to take for main and he was prescribed for amoxicillin. The condition did not improve and he went back to the hospital again and he was diagnosed with septic thrombophlebitis. He was readmitted to the hospital and he suffered multisystem failure and he died later in 2005. His wife sues the hospital together with the nurses that was involved. The hospital dismisses the suit on the grounds that Texas Civil Practice and Remedies code that demands that a plaintiff should provide a summary report on experts view (Nursing Law's Regan Report, 2010). The court dismisses the case on the ground that the plaintiff fails to prove the case. The court observed that the plaintiff failed to give a fair summary of the care standard for any defendants and Dr Berkowitz opinion was baseless since it contradicts medical records. According to my opinion the court should have been held liable since the staff in the hospital placed the IV catheter in the left arm which caused the harm and later on death. Another case involves two family members named Emily Farlow and her husband Lee William Farlow who sued the Harris Methodist Fort Worth Hospital and Texas Health Resources. The family claimed that lee went to the hospital for minor treatment when he suffered from headache. The following day Dr. Fewins who was an employee at the hospital recommended that he performs endoscopic transnasal biopsy, in the process of the surgery; the Dr injured the central nerves system causing a permanent damage. The family asserted that the doctor carried out the surgery with negligence and Harris hospital was also liable since Dr Fewins was employee in that hospital. They also claimed the hospital breached a duty because it provided the equipments that were used by the doctor. Harris filed a traditional motion claiming that there is no evidence showing that Dr Fewins was there employee. They claimed that Dr Fewins was an independent contractor who was carrying out duties as a private practitioner. The family came up with six points trying to prove that hospital was liable but it was overruled by the judges Cayce, Livingston and Gardner (Terrie Livingston Justice, 2009). According to my opinion, I believe the hospital was liable since Dr Fewins was working there and he used the hospital equipments to carry out the surgery. The hospital didn’t deny this but it claimed the doctor was in private practice. In conclusion, both employer and the employee should be conversant with this doctrine to avoid unprecedented actions that will cost them dearly. Being privy with the law will help them avoid unnecessary damages that come with heavy cost implication to both the employer and the employee. References Lauren E. (2010). Supervision and collaboration requirements: the vulnerability of nurse Practitioners and its implications for retail health. Washington: Washington University Law Review McNary, A. (2011). Nonphysician Providers and Liability Exposure to Supervising Psychiatrists. Innovation in clinical neuroscience. Innov Clin Neurosci. Vol. 8, no.12, pp. 32–34 Nursing Law's Regan Report. (2010). Septic thrombophlepbitis & death: hospital & nurses sued. Medical Law Publishing: Texas Accessed on 11/14/12 at http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Septic+thrombophlepbitis+%26+death%3a+hospital+%26+nurses+sued.-a0221907922 Thornton, R. (2010). Responsibility for the acts of others. Baylor university medical center. Vol. 23. No. 3 pp. 313–315 Terrie Livingston Justice. (2009). Farlow v. Harris Methodist Fort Worth Hospital and Texas Health Resources, Inc. Texas lawyer. Accessed on 11/14/12 at http://www.law.com/jsp/tx/LawDecisionTX.jsp?id=1202430638168&slreturn=20121014120112 Dane C & Bolia Daniel. (2009). Ending a Decade of Federal Prosecutorial Abuse in the Corporate Criminal Charging Decision. Wyoming law review. Vol. 9, no. 1 Read More