AN EMPLOYER’S RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ACTS OF ITS EMPLOYEES
By Attorney Randall J. Andersen
October, 2013
By Attorney Randall J. Andersen
October, 2013
Disclaimer: The information contained on this page is not legal advice. The information provided on this website is for general informational purposes and is not necessarily updated to account for changes in the law. You should consult with an attorney for legal advice regarding your individual circumstances.
One of the consequences of the employer/employee relationship is that the employer is generally responsible for the torts (such as negligence) committed by employees while acting within the scope of their employment. This legal principle is known as the “doctrine of respondeat superior.” When an employee is acting as the employer’s “servant” and is subject to the employer’s right to control his/her conduct, the employer is responsible for the employee’s negligence, even if the employer is not aware of the employee’s negligence.
Whether the employee is acting within the scope of employment has led to much litigation over the years. Whether an incident occurred within the scope of the employment is often said to depend on the employee’s intent at the time that it occurred. Conduct of an employee is not within the scope of employment if it is different in kind from that authorized, far beyond the authorized time or space limits, or too little actuated by a purpose to serve the employer.
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals recently issued a decision addressing the responsibility of the employer for a motor vehicle accident caused by an employee while running an errand for the employer, in the case of Milwaukee Transport Services, Inc. v. Family Dollar Stores of Wisconsin, Inc. Previous court decisions held that the employer is vicariously liable for an employee’s negligent acts while commuting to work in the employee’s own vehicle only when the employer exercises control over the method or route of the employee’s travel to or from work. Since most employers do not control the method or route that the employee takes, employers in Wisconsin usually are not responsible for accidents which occur during commuting.
In the case, assistant managers were occasionally requested to make bank deposits on their days off. In this case, an assistant manager was asked to make a bank run on her day off. The assistant manager borrowed a vehicle from a friend and was involved in an accident while on her way to the Family Dollar Store to pick up the bank deposit. The Court of Appeals held that Family Dollar was not responsible because she was en route to her place of employment and Family Dollar did not exercise control over the assistant manager’s route or method of travel. The Court declined to expand the scope of liability for motor vehicle accidents caused by an employee under the “required vehicle exception” or the “special mission exception,” which are followed in some states (but have not been adopted in Wisconsin).
Unlike with employees, the respondeat superior doctrine does not apply to independent contractors. The principal is generally not liable to third parties for the torts of an independent contractor, except with respect to certain duties and risks which the principal is not permitted to bargain away, or if a contract exists between the principal and the third party.
Whether the employee is acting within the scope of employment has led to much litigation over the years. Whether an incident occurred within the scope of the employment is often said to depend on the employee’s intent at the time that it occurred. Conduct of an employee is not within the scope of employment if it is different in kind from that authorized, far beyond the authorized time or space limits, or too little actuated by a purpose to serve the employer.
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals recently issued a decision addressing the responsibility of the employer for a motor vehicle accident caused by an employee while running an errand for the employer, in the case of Milwaukee Transport Services, Inc. v. Family Dollar Stores of Wisconsin, Inc. Previous court decisions held that the employer is vicariously liable for an employee’s negligent acts while commuting to work in the employee’s own vehicle only when the employer exercises control over the method or route of the employee’s travel to or from work. Since most employers do not control the method or route that the employee takes, employers in Wisconsin usually are not responsible for accidents which occur during commuting.
In the case, assistant managers were occasionally requested to make bank deposits on their days off. In this case, an assistant manager was asked to make a bank run on her day off. The assistant manager borrowed a vehicle from a friend and was involved in an accident while on her way to the Family Dollar Store to pick up the bank deposit. The Court of Appeals held that Family Dollar was not responsible because she was en route to her place of employment and Family Dollar did not exercise control over the assistant manager’s route or method of travel. The Court declined to expand the scope of liability for motor vehicle accidents caused by an employee under the “required vehicle exception” or the “special mission exception,” which are followed in some states (but have not been adopted in Wisconsin).
Unlike with employees, the respondeat superior doctrine does not apply to independent contractors. The principal is generally not liable to third parties for the torts of an independent contractor, except with respect to certain duties and risks which the principal is not permitted to bargain away, or if a contract exists between the principal and the third party.