January 28, 2026

Respondeat Superior: Why This Common-Law Doctrine Matters Today

By Laura Trachtman

As an attorney who practices quite a lot of employment law, I frequently deal with the legal concept of respondeat superior. What is it, and why is it important to an employment law practice? 

What is Respondeat Superior?

Respondeat superior is a Latin phrase meaning roughly “let the master answer.” (We’ll scoot right by why we, as Americans, continue to use Latin (and French) in our legal system.)  Under this legal theory,  an employer is vicariously responsible for the tortious actions of its employees, as long as they  act within the scope of their employment. In the famous case  of Riviello v. Waldren, 47 N.Y.2d 297 (1979), the courts weighed in on whether an employer was responsible for his employee’s actions when that employee, while at work, injured a customer. The Court specifically focused on the  meaning of the phrase “within the scope of his employment.” 

The Court of Appeals first explained that the respondeat superior doctrine had initially been narrowly defined, which meant that, because the employer could exercise close control over his employees while the employees were engaged in serving their employer, the employer’s liability was limited. Over time, however, social policies helped expand the doctrine.  

An Expanding Doctrine

 The expansion of respondeat superior is what makes the doctrine important to an employment attorney, as it opens up a brand new set of defendants for an injured party. What fueled this expansion? The increasing frequency of employees injuring third parties is one reason; Another is the generally deeper pockets of the employer relative to the employee who caused the injury. Modern economic devices, such as cost accounting and insurance coverage, make the burden of a lawsuit and subsequent damages easier for the employer to bear, as opposed to the employee or the injured party. 

When is the Doctrine Applicable? 

Accordingly, the test for the doctrine of respondeat superior was whether the tortious act was done while the employee was executing the employer’s work. It didn’t matter how irregularly or with what disregard of the employer’s instructions. 

Of course, because we are discussing the law, the application of this doctrine isn’t quite that simple: It is a fact-based inquiry, and thus usually reserved for the jury. That means that, while the question can be determined on a motion for summary judgment, it needn’t necessarily be so easily resolved. 

The courts have set forth guidelines to help  determine employer liability: the connection between the time, place and occasion of  the act; the history of the relationship between the employer and employee as spelled out in actual practice, like day to day interactions; whether the act is one commonly done by such an employee; the extent of departure from normal methods of performance; and whether  the employer could reasonably have anticipated the specific act. A vital inquiry is whether the tortious act as performed by the employee was so removed from their duties  as to be considered an abandonment of service to the employer. A negative answer severs the responsibility of the employer. But how is this determined?

This issue is highlighted in another Court of Appeals case, Rivera v. State, 34 N.Y.3d 383 (2019), which examined whether the State is responsible for the assault by corrections officers of an inmate. Corrections officers are indeed authorized to use physical force against inmates in limited circumstances. However, the facts therein – that it was a brutal and prolonged beating involving multiple corrections officers in a flagrant and unjustified use of force – informed the Court’s decision to sever liability. Specifically, the Court held that: “[h]ere, the gratuitous and utterly unauthorized use of force was so egregious as to constitute a significant departure from the normal methods of performance of the duties of a correction officer as a matter of law. This was a malicious attack completely divorced from the employer’s interests.” Id. at 391. 

Both of the cases examined above involved physical injury. Yet this is certainly not the only injury for which an employer could be held responsible. A critical inquiry is whether the employer’s interests are involved in the employee’s commission, either negligently or intentionally, of the tort at issue. This issue should be examined at the beginning of one’s representation to ensure that the employer is indeed exposed to liability for the acts of his employee.