Yes, in certain circumstances, an employer can be deemed negligent in connection with an accident caused by one of its employees -- and therefore liable in the context of a personal injury case -- under a legal concept known as "vicarious liability."
This kind of liability is imposed on one person or entity based on the negligent or wrongful conduct of someone else. More simply put, vicarious liability is based on relationships. Besides the employment context, vicarious liability may also be used to hold parents liable for the acts of their minor children, or it may apply when a vehicle owner loans their car to someone else.
In this article, we'll focus on vicarious liability in the employment context: when a company or other employer can be legally responsible for the negligence of one if its workers.
To hold an employer vicariously liable for the harm that one of its employee causes, the injured person usually must be able to convince the judge:
Let's take a closer look at these elements.
To hold an employer responsible for the wrongful acts of an employee, the injured party must first prove that the at-fault party was actually an employee. Often times, the employer will not dispute the existence of an employment relationship. But, where the legal status of the at-fault-party is at issue (was the person an employee, or contractor), it falls on the injured party to show that the employer controlled the means and manner by which the employee’s work was performed.
For instance, are physicians "employees" of the hospital where they practice medicine? The relationship between a physician and a hospital is often complex, and it can be a key issue when it comes to liability for medical malpractice. More often than not, physicians are independent contractors, not employees of the hospital where they practice. But, physicians treating patients at a hospital must follow strict guidelines and policies laid out by the facility or healthcare group. Whether a court holds a hospital, facility, or healthcare group vicariously liable for the medical malpractice of a physician often depends on a thorough analysis of the nature of the relationship between the parties. Learn more about whether you can sue a hospital for medical malpractice.
Another example of the often-fuzzy relationship between workers and companies is Uber and Lyft drivers, who are considered by Lyft and Uber as independent contractors, and not employees of the rideshare companies for which they driver.
On a similar note, when Michael Jackson’s family sued the concert promoter who had hired the physician responsible for injecting the singer with a fatal dose of propofol, the court found that the contract between the concert promoter and the physician did not permit the promoter to direct how the physician was to perform his work. The physician was independently licensed. Also, Michael Jackson, not the promoter, was paying the physician. So the concert promoter could not be on the legal hook for the physician's actions under a "vicarious liability" theory. (Jackson v. AEG Live, LLC (2015) 233 Cal. App. 4th 1156, 1179.)
To demonstrate that an employee's wrongful acts were committed "within the course and scope of employment," the injured person must prove that the act was either required by the employer or reasonably incidental to the employment. In the alternative, the injured party must show that the employer could reasonably foresee the misconduct.
To illustrate, if a salesperson driving a company car on the way to a sales call runs a red light and causes a car accident, the employer will likely be held vicariously liable for the salesperson’s negligence. However, if the same salesperson, driving the same company car, causes an accident while running an errand on her day off, the employer will most likely not be liable. Personal activities typically do not fall within the scope of employment, even where they are conducted using a company car.
Similarly, an employee commuting to and from work, or driving while on a lunch break, is usually not acting within the course and scope of employment -- unless the employee is running a "special errand" benefiting the employer.
Whether the intentional acts of an employee fall within the course and scope of employment often depends on the facts. For instance, courts have generally been very reluctant to hold employers vicariously liable when an employee assaults a third party, even if the incident occurred during work hours and on company premises. But, in a retail context, where altercations with customers may not be so uncommon, some courts have suggested that an employee’s assault of a customer may be a foreseeable risk of employment. Learn more about foreseeability and negligence.
