Legal Definitions - master–servant rule

The master–servant rule is a legal principle that holds an employer responsible for the wrongful acts of an employee, provided those acts occur within the scope of their employment. This concept is a form of vicarious liability, meaning one party is held liable for the actions of another, even if they did not directly cause the harm. It is closely associated with the Latin legal doctrine of respondeat superior, which translates to "let the master answer." Essentially, if an employee causes harm while performing their job duties, the employer can be held legally accountable for that harm.

Here are some examples illustrating the master–servant rule:

• Example 1: Delivery Driver Accident
  A courier company employee, while driving a company van to deliver packages on their assigned route, negligently fails to yield at an intersection and causes a collision with another vehicle. The driver was acting within the scope of their employment at the time of the accident.

  How it illustrates the rule: Under the master–servant rule, the courier company (the employer) could be held legally responsible for the damages and injuries caused by their employee's negligence. Even though the company itself did not directly cause the accident, the employee was performing their job duties when the incident occurred, making the employer vicariously liable.

• Example 2: Restaurant Staff Misconduct
  A server at a restaurant, during their shift, becomes frustrated with a customer and intentionally spills a drink on them. The customer sues for battery and property damage.

  How it illustrates the rule: The restaurant (the employer) could be held liable for the server's (the employee's) intentional act. While spilling a drink intentionally is not part of a server's job, the act occurred during the server's work hours, in the workplace, and arose from an interaction with a customer in the course of their employment. Courts often consider such acts, even if wrongful, to be within the "scope of employment" for the purpose of employer liability if they are incidental to or arise out of the employee's duties.

• Example 3: Construction Site Damage
  An employee of a plumbing company, while installing pipes in a client's home, accidentally drops a heavy tool, cracking a valuable tile floor. The employee was performing a task directly related to their job responsibilities for the company.

  How it illustrates the rule: The plumbing company (the employer) would likely be held responsible for the cost of repairing or replacing the damaged floor. The employee was performing their job duties for the company when the accident happened, making the company vicariously liable under the master–servant rule for the damage caused by their employee's negligence.