It is a known fact that some people who break the law, whether intentionally or not, from time to time, while they are doing their job. Some are also noted to be using company resources (such as a vehicle supplied by the company) during the act. In such instances, who is to blame – the offender or the company/employer for who the person is working for? Who is held legally responsible if an employee commits a crime or act, outside of his working premises? Let’s take a look at the facts.
Respondeat superior
There is a legal doctrine that has existed for quite some time now, known as respondeat superior, which is Latin for “let the superior answer.” This essentially means that an employer can be legally held liable for negative acts committed by any of its employees during the course and scope of his employment. Additionally, employers could be held liable for both negligent acts committed by employees, as well as intentional criminal acts. These employees could be full-time workers, part-time, or even independent contractors or temporary workers.
The important thing to note here is if the employee was deemed to be acting in the scope or course of his employment at the time of the act. If the employee was acting due to personal motives, then the employer will not be held liable. Let’s take a look at two examples (or scenarios) with contrasting results.
Example 1 – A popular pizza restaurant offers a delivery promo, saying that your pizza will be delivered within 30 minutes; otherwise, the next order is free. The pizza delivery guy, in his haste to meet the deadline, hits a pedestrian while driving. The pizza company would likely be liable as a result.
Example 2 –This same delivery guy uses the company vehicle after the restaurant closes and hits a pedestrian while on the way to a friend’s house. The company would likely not be held liable since the delivery guy was not acting in the scope of employment during the accident.
