Vicarious Liability - Overview, Structure, Properties & Uses

Vicarious Liability

Edited By Ritika Jonwal | Updated on Jul 02, 2025 05:39 PM IST

The legislation lays forth particular obligations for its citizens. It is a violation to neglect these obligations. When someone disregards the duties imposed by civil law, They are infringing the law of torts, not criminal law or certain civil wrongs like breaching a contract or betraying confidence. A tort is primarily a civil offence, meaning it violates someone else's broad legal rights.

This Story also Contains

Essential conditions to constitute a Vicarious Liability
Types of Vicarious liability
Relationship under which a vicarious liability comes into existence
Why does Vicarious Liability arise?
Essentials to determine a Master-Servant Relationship
Exceptions to the liability of a master
The Doctrine of Respondent Superior
Case law on Vicarious liability
Conclusion

The legal obligation an individual has for the deeds of another because of their relationship is known as vicarious responsibility. Latin word "vice," which means "vice," is where the word "vicarious" originates. "in place of." The concept of vicarious liability in tort law pertains to the idea that one individual bears responsibility for the actions of another, hence transferring culpability from one party to the other.

Vicarious liabilities therefore arise when one person is accountable for the deeds of another. This is an exception to the general norm that holds the act's perpetrator solely responsible. "Qui facit per se per alium facit per se," or "He who acts through another is considered to have done it themselves," is the foundation upon which vicarious responsibility is based.

Essential conditions to constitute a Vicarious Liability

The essential conditions to constitute a vicarious liability are-

Existence of certain relationships between both parties.
The offence should be committed by either party
The wrongful act committed by either party should be during the course of employment.

Existence of certain relationships between the parties

As was previously said, vicarious responsibility in tort law refers to situations in which one person is held legally responsible for the wrongdoings of another. This holds for principal-agent, master-servant, and employer-employee relationships. It's important to emphasise that the relationship in question ought to be legal. showing that the agent or employee is carrying out their duties in accordance with a legal contract or agreement with the principal or employer.

The offence should be committed by either party

Either party to a contract must commit the offence for there to be vicarious liability. If one of the two parties to a contract is the master and the other is the servant, and the servant violates any laws, In this instance, the servant's transgression will be the master's fault. Since the master and the servant had a relationship.

The wrongful act committed by either party should be during the course of employment.

The detrimental action and the employment or contract must be connected in some way. This suggests that the action was taken to further the objectives or business of the principal contractor or employer.

For example, if an employee tasked with delivering products uses an employer-owned car and causes an accident, the employer may be held liable because the event occurred while the employee was working for the employer.

Types of Vicarious liability

Vicarious liability refers to the situation in which a person bears responsibility for the deed or crime done by another. Here are some examples of vicarious liability:

Principal Liability

When someone grants permission to another person to drive their vehicle in order to comply with an owner's request, vicarious duty binds the owner to pay for any harm or damage caused by that person's negligence.

On the other hand, B used his car for her requirements after A completed her tasks, which led to an accident. In this instance, A cannot be held accountable for B's actions.

Parental Liability

In any event, parents are accountable if their child abuses the environment they have set up to harm others. Giving a child access to a gun or allowing them to drive are two examples of these circumstances. In situations where parents do not offer sufficient supervision, they are somewhat to blame for their child's carelessness.

For instance, Y, who is ten years old, is the child of X. Y damaged Z's car because she was too preoccupied with her daily tasks to supervise her. In this instance, X is responsible for Y's behavior as Y is X's child and it is expected that X will monitor Y's behavior.

Relationship under which a vicarious liability comes into existence

As is well known, in order for one party to be held accountable for the offence committed by another, there must be a relationship between the two parties in order for there to be vicarious responsibility.

Relationship between Principal and Agent

Just as there is a relationship between an employer and an employee, a principal can be held responsible for the wrongdoings of their agent. An agent is a person who has been given permission to act as the principal's representative on their behalf. For instance, if a representative behaves dishonestly while representing the company in a transaction, the real estate company might be held accountable.

The principal's consent may be given verbally or nonverbally. Even though the principal gave their initial consent, they are nonetheless accountable for any mistakes the agents make in the course of performing their jobs.

In this instance, the principal has authority and influence over the agent. As a result, it is thought that the agent and the principal share joint blame for the tort, suggesting that their liability is unrestricted. One or both of these parties may be the target of a lawsuit brought by the plaintiff.

Relationship between Employer and employee

The vicarious responsibility principle holds that an employer is accountable for the misconduct of its workers. For instance, the company can be responsible for any damages if one of its employees uses a company car and gets into an accident. This is because, at the time of the incident, the employee was performing their duties as assigned.

It is important to remember that this requirement may still be applicable in situations where an employee disregards explicit instructions with no positive consequences. Because both parties may share full responsibility, the relationship between an agent and a principal is similar to that of an employer and employee.

The mere fact that an employee had the choice to conduct themself differently while employed by the company does not release the employer from liability when that employee engages in behaviour that is at odds with their job duties.

Relationship between partners

In a business partnership, each partner could be held liable for the transgressions of the others. This implies that if one partner behaves dishonestly while representing the company, the other partners could be held accountable for any losses.

Partners have a connection that is comparable to that of a principal and an agent, and the same agency rules apply to their interactions. When two people work together, they each look out for the interests of the other while maintaining their sense of oneness. These partnerships may grow into corporations, trusts, companies, or even Hindu shared families, or Kartas. As a result, a partner may be held indirectly accountable for the actions of another partner who breaches the law, as specified by the Indian Partnership Act of 1935.

Relationship between Parents and child

In some cases, a parent can be held directly accountable for their children's bad actions. For instance, if a young child causes an accident in a family car, the owner of the vehicle may be held legally liable for any injuries sustained

Why does Vicarious Liability arise?

Insofar as there must be a relationship between the two parties, one person or party bears vicarious culpability for the deeds or offences of another person or party. The following are the causes of vicarious liability:

1. A servant is only the master's agent, working under the supervision and command of his employer. Consequently, the servant obeys his master's commands, meaning he finishes the work as instructed by the master. As a result, the master is responsible for the actions or wrongdoings of the servant.

2. Because the master constantly values the labour of his servants, he has equal responsibility for any damage or loss resulting from the activities of the servants while they are employed by him.

3. A servant's financial status is less secure than that of the master. As a result, the master must take responsibility per legal requirement. for the actions the servant carried out Mastery allows one to protect oneself from such situations, nevertheless, by taking the necessary precautions.

Essentials to determine a Master-Servant Relationship

It is essential to determine whether a relationship existed between the master and the servant in order for there to be a vicarious liability. As previously stated, a relationship between the master and the servant is necessary in order to hold the master accountable for the servant's conduct. Therefore, a number of tests are used to ascertain the nature of the master-servant relationship. They are listed in the following order:

The Hire and Tire Test

The most popular test to determine if a relationship exists between the master and the servant is the hiring and fire test. According to this test, in a situation where an employer has the power to hire and fire employees, the employee is seen as the servant and the employer as the master. The notion behind this test's design is that the ability to hire and fire someone suggests that you have some control over their output.

An employer might, for example, assign an independent contractor to work on a specific project, but they won't be allowed to fire them until the work is done. The test of hire and fire will not apply in these situations since the employer lacks the authority to terminate an independent contractor.

The Control and Order Test

The control and order test is an additional tool for assessing the master-servant dynamic. By this test, a master-servant relationship exists if the employer has the power to oversee and direct the employee's job. This includes the ability to give instructions, the capability to supervise the task, and the authority to select the methods and procedures to be used in carrying out the task.

While the master may not be able to terminate an independent contractor, he does have the authority to manage and give instructions to the contractor regarding the tasks that have been delegated to him.

For instance, if a master hires an independent contractor to paint his car, the employer becomes the independent contractor's master since the master can direct the independent contractor to choose the colour of paint he desires.

The Multiple Test

The multiple test is used to distinguish between a contract of service and a service contract. It also helps determine if the servant works for the master directly or as an independent contractor.

The competent court defines the factors to be taken into account in determining whether there is a contract of service in the case of Ready-mixed Concrete v. Minister of Pensions and National Insurance.

The employee agrees to provide labour and skills to the corporation in exchange for compensation or other incentives.
A master-servant relationship is indicated by the employee's consent to a certain degree of control from the employer while performing their job.
Given the concept of a service contract, the remaining terms and conditions of the agreement must make sense.

Exceptions to the liability of a master

The rules of vicarious responsibility state that although a master is accountable for the actions of his servant or employee, in certain situations the servant or employee is also accountable for his own actions. They're

When a servant is legally required to perform a task that the master is unable to delegate, the master is not liable.
When a servant participates in the removal of help from a neighbouring land, the master is not liable.
The master is not liable for situations in which very dangerous activities are taken.
In situations where individuals must escape the fire, the master is not liable.
Under no circumstances when the highways are used is the master accountable.

The Doctrine of Respondent Superior

The Latin expression "Let the master answer" is the source of the American doctrine. This theory was put into place to recognize the restricted financial capabilities of subordinates and to rein in the careless actions of superiors, such as employers or masters. When this approach is applied, negligent acts committed by an employee or servant while they are at work subject both to accountability—the employer and the servant.

Requirements of this doctrine

The Doctrine of Respondent Superior is composed of two basic requirements. They're

For a master or employer to be properly held responsible for the acts of their employees and servants as if they were their own, there must be a link between them.
A tortious act committed by a servant or employee must take place within the context of their employment.

The court uses the following tests to ascertain the nature of the connection between a master and a servant:

The power that the employer has over the worker
Whether the employer works for a company or for a profession
The abilities required for that specific position
Whether the employer gives the worker the tools, equipment, and instruments
The employee's working hours
The manner in which the employee is compensated
Whether or whether the position offered is associated with the business
Whichever of the two parties is in charge of the company

Case law on Vicarious liability

In the case of State Bank of India v. Shyama Devi

Checks written out to a friend who was employed by the defendant's bank were delivered by the plaintiff's husband to be deposited into his account. There were no receipts for the deposits, and the friend stole the money.

The court found that although the employee had committed the fraud, he was not acting in the course of his employment at the bank; rather, he was acting as a friend of the depositor. As a result, the defendant's bank could not be held liable through vicarious liability.

Conclusion

Through vicarious liability, someone who is not directly at blame for any tortious wrong may nevertheless be held liable. It might be interpreted as the strict obligation of the boss to the deeds of his employees. Without a doubt, the concept helps the plaintiff, or victim, file a claim and get compensated for whatever harm was done to him. Furthermore, there are instances in which the master is released from responsibility for the actions of the employee or servant.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What is Vicarious Liability?

Vicarious liabilities arise when one person is accountable for the deeds of another. Vicarious liability occurs when the servant or the employee commits any offence which makes the master liable as there is a relationship between them.

2. What is Vicarious Liability?

Vicarious liability is a legal concept where one party (usually an employer) is held responsible for the wrongful actions of another party (usually an employee) even though the first party was not directly at fault. This principle is based on the idea that employers should be accountable for the actions of their employees while they are performing work-related duties.

3. Define principle and agent in a vicarious liability.

Similar to the connection between an employer and an employee, a principal may be held accountable for their agent's improper deeds. A person who is authorised to act on behalf of the principal and represents them is known as an agent

4. What is vicarious liability for partners and firms?

Each partner in a business partnership may be held accountable for the wrongdoings of their fellow partners. This suggests that all partners may be held liable for any losses that result from one partner acting improperly while acting on behalf of the firm.

5. Who is an independent contractor?

An independent contractor works independently and cannot be fired by the master of the employer.

6. What is a multiple test?

In order to differentiate between a contract for service and a contract of service, the multiple test is employed. It also serves to ascertain if the servant is an independent contractor or an employee of the master. The multiple test is used.

7. What is the "scope of employment" test in vicarious liability?

The "scope of employment" test is used to determine whether an employer can be held vicariously liable for an employee's actions. It asks whether the employee's conduct was sufficiently related to their job duties or if it occurred within the time and space limits of their employment. If the action falls within the scope of employment, the employer may be held liable.

8. Can an employer be held liable for an employee's intentional wrongdoing?

Yes, an employer can be held liable for an employee's intentional wrongdoing if it is closely connected to the employee's authorized duties. Courts consider factors such as the nature of the employee's job, the opportunity that the job created for wrongdoing, and whether the wrongful act was a way of carrying out the employee's responsibilities, albeit improperly.

9. How does the "frolic and detour" doctrine relate to vicarious liability?

The "frolic and detour" doctrine helps determine whether an employee's actions fall within the scope of employment. A "frolic" is a major departure from job duties for personal reasons, while a "detour" is a minor deviation. Generally, employers are not liable for employees' actions during a frolic but may be liable during a detour. This doctrine helps courts decide whether the employee's conduct was sufficiently work-related to justify imposing liability on the employer.

10. What is the "borrowed servant" doctrine in vicarious liability?

The "borrowed servant" doctrine applies when an employee is temporarily loaned to another employer. In such cases, the borrowing employer may be held vicariously liable for the employee's actions if they have the right to control the employee's work. Factors considered include who has the power to select and dismiss the employee, who pays the employee, and who controls the employee's work.

11. What is the "close connection" test in vicarious liability?

The "close connection" test is used to determine whether an employer should be held vicariously liable for an employee's wrongful act. It asks whether there is a sufficiently close connection between the employee's wrongful conduct and their employment duties. This test allows for a more flexible approach than the traditional "scope of employment" test, potentially holding employers liable for a broader range of employee actions.

12. How does vicarious liability apply in cases of employee horseplay or pranks?

Employers may be held vicariously liable for injuries resulting from employee horseplay or pranks if they occur within the scope of employment. Courts consider factors such as whether the activity was a common occurrence in the workplace, whether it was tolerated by management, and whether it was reasonably foreseeable. If the horseplay is a substantial deviation from work duties, vicarious liability is less likely to apply.

13. Can an employer be vicariously liable for an employee's criminal actions?

An employer can be held vicariously liable for an employee's criminal actions if they were committed within the scope of employment and in furtherance of the employer's interests. However, courts are generally reluctant to impose vicarious liability for serious criminal acts, as these are often considered to be outside the scope of employment. The more closely related the criminal act is to the employee's job duties, the more likely vicarious liability may apply.

14. How does vicarious liability apply in cases of employee fraud or embezzlement?

Employers can be held vicariously liable for employee fraud or embezzlement if the fraudulent acts were committed within the scope of employment and in furtherance of the employer's business. Courts consider factors such as whether the employee's position created the opportunity for fraud and whether the employer benefited from the fraudulent activity. This application of vicarious liability encourages employers to implement strong internal controls to prevent financial misconduct.

15. What is the "dual purpose" doctrine in vicarious liability?

The "dual purpose" doctrine applies when an employee is simultaneously serving both personal and work-related purposes. If an employee causes harm while engaged in an activity that serves both purposes, the employer may still be held vicariously liable. Courts will consider whether the employee's conduct was at least partially motivated by a desire to serve the employer's interests.

16. How does vicarious liability interact with workers' compensation laws?

Workers' compensation laws generally provide the exclusive remedy for employees injured on the job, preventing them from suing their employers directly. However, vicarious liability can still apply when a third party is injured by an employee's actions. In such cases, the injured third party may sue the employer under vicarious liability, while the employee's own injuries would be covered by workers' compensation.

17. What is the "coming and going" rule in vicarious liability?

The "coming and going" rule generally states that an employer is not vicariously liable for an employee's actions while commuting to and from work. This is because commuting is considered outside the scope of employment. However, exceptions may apply if: 1) The employee is on a special errand for the employer, 2) The employer provides transportation, or 3) The employee is required to use their personal vehicle for work purposes.

18. Can an employer be vicariously liable for the actions of an independent contractor?

Generally, employers are not vicariously liable for the actions of independent contractors. However, there are exceptions: 1) If the employer retains control over the contractor's work, 2) If the work is inherently dangerous, 3) If the employer has a non-delegable duty, or 4) If the employer negligently selects the contractor. In these cases, the employer may be held liable for the contractor's actions.

19. Can a parent be held vicariously liable for their child's actions?

In most jurisdictions, parents are not automatically held vicariously liable for their children's actions. However, there are exceptions: 1) If the parent failed to properly supervise the child, 2) If the parent entrusted the child with a dangerous instrument, or 3) If there are specific statutes imposing parental liability. These exceptions are based on the parent's own negligence rather than true vicarious liability.

20. Can an employer avoid vicarious liability by classifying workers as independent contractors?

Simply classifying workers as independent contractors does not automatically shield an employer from vicarious liability. Courts will look at the actual nature of the working relationship, considering factors such as the degree of control the employer exercises, the method of payment, and the integration of the worker's tasks into the employer's business. If the relationship is found to be more like that of an employer-employee, vicarious liability may still apply regardless of the classification.

21. What is the "non-delegable duty" exception in vicarious liability?

The "non-delegable duty" exception holds that certain duties are so important that an employer cannot escape liability by delegating them to another party, even an independent contractor. Examples include duties related to safety in construction sites or the duty of care owed by hospitals to patients. In these cases, the employer remains vicariously liable for breaches of these duties, even if they were not directly at fault.

22. Can an employer be vicariously liable for an employee's actions outside of working hours?

Generally, an employer is not vicariously liable for an employee's actions outside of working hours. However, exceptions may apply if: 1) The employee was performing work-related duties at the time, 2) The employer required or encouraged the activity, or 3) The employer derived some benefit from the activity. Courts will examine the connection between the employee's conduct and their employment to determine if vicarious liability applies.

23. How does vicarious liability apply in cases of apparent authority?

Apparent authority arises when a third party reasonably believes that an individual has the authority to act on behalf of an employer, even if no actual authority exists. If an employer creates the appearance that someone has authority to act on their behalf, they may be held vicariously liable for that person's actions, even if they are not an actual employee. This principle protects third parties who rely on reasonable appearances of authority.

24. How does vicarious liability apply in cases involving volunteers?

Organizations can potentially be held vicariously liable for the actions of volunteers if the volunteer was acting within the scope of their assigned duties. Courts consider factors such as the level of control the organization exercises over the volunteer, the nature of the volunteer work, and whether the organization benefited from the volunteer's actions. This application of vicarious liability encourages organizations to properly train and supervise their volunteers.

25. What is the "borrowed employee" doctrine in vicarious liability?

The "borrowed employee" doctrine applies when one employer temporarily lends an employee to another employer. The borrowing employer may be held vicariously liable for the employee's actions if they have the right to control the employee's work. Factors considered include who has the power to select and dismiss the employee, who pays the employee, and who controls the employee's work methods.

26. How does vicarious liability apply in cases of joint employers?

In situations where an employee has joint employers (e.g., temp agencies and their clients), both employers may be held vicariously liable for the employee's actions. Courts consider factors such as who has the right to control the employee's work, who pays the employee, and who has the power to hire and fire. This application of vicarious liability ensures that employees with complex employment arrangements are still covered by the doctrine.

27. Can an employer be vicariously liable for an employee's actions during a lunch break?

Generally, employers are not vicariously liable for employees' actions during lunch breaks, as these are typically considered outside the scope of employment. However, exceptions may apply if: 1) The employee was performing work-related tasks during the break, 2) The employer exercised control over the employee's activities during the break, or 3) The employer derived some benefit from the employee's actions during the break.

28. What is the difference between vicarious liability and direct liability?

Vicarious liability holds one party responsible for another's actions without direct fault, typically in an employer-employee relationship. Direct liability, on the other hand, holds a party responsible for their own negligent actions or failures. For example, an employer could be directly liable for negligent hiring or supervision, but vicariously liable for an employee's negligent actions while on the job.

29. How does vicarious liability apply in cases of sexual harassment in the workplace?

In cases of workplace sexual harassment, employers can be held vicariously liable for the actions of supervisors or managers who engage in harassment. For non-supervisory employees, the employer may be liable if they knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to take appropriate corrective action. This application of vicarious liability aims to encourage employers to prevent and address sexual harassment in the workplace.

30. How does vicarious liability apply in cases of car accidents involving company vehicles?

When an employee causes a car accident while driving a company vehicle, the employer may be held vicariously liable if the employee was acting within the scope of their employment at the time. This could include driving for work-related purposes, but typically not commuting to and from work. The principle of respondeat superior (let the master answer) applies in these cases, holding the employer responsible for the employee's negligent driving.

31. How does vicarious liability apply to partnerships?

In partnerships, each partner can be held vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of other partners committed within the scope of the partnership business. This principle is based on the idea that partners are mutual agents for each other in partnership affairs. However, in limited partnerships, limited partners are generally not vicariously liable for the actions of general partners or the partnership itself.

32. How does vicarious liability apply in cases of ratification?

Ratification occurs when an employer approves of or accepts the benefits of an employee's unauthorized actions after the fact. If an employer ratifies an employee's wrongful act, they may be held vicariously liable for it, even if the act was originally outside the scope of employment. This principle encourages employers to promptly disavow unauthorized employee actions to avoid potential liability.

33. What is the "captain of the ship" doctrine in medical malpractice cases?

The "captain of the ship" doctrine is a form of vicarious liability specific to medical malpractice cases. It traditionally held that the lead surgeon could be held liable for the negligence of all personnel in the operating room, even if they were not directly employed by the surgeon. While this doctrine has been largely abandoned in many jurisdictions, it illustrates how vicarious liability principles can be applied in specialized contexts.

34. Can an employer be vicariously liable for an employee's actions in a company-sponsored social event?

Employers can potentially be held vicariously liable for employee actions at company-sponsored social events, even if attendance is voluntary. Courts consider factors such as whether the event was within work hours, whether it was on company premises, whether the employer derived a benefit from the event, and the level of employer control over the event. This application of vicarious liability encourages employers to ensure safety at company events.

35. How does vicarious liability apply in cases of employee moonlighting?

Employers are generally not vicariously liable for an employee's actions while moonlighting (working a second job) unless: 1) The moonlighting is done with the employer's knowledge and approval, 2) The work is closely related to the employee's primary job duties, or 3) The employer derives some benefit from the moonlighting activities. Courts will examine the connection between the moonlighting and the primary employment to determine if vicarious liability applies.

36. Why does vicarious liability exist in tort law?

Vicarious liability exists in tort law for several reasons: 1) It ensures that victims have access to compensation from a party more likely to have the financial means to pay, 2) It encourages employers to take steps to prevent employee misconduct, 3) It recognizes that employers benefit from their employees' actions and should therefore bear some of the risks, and 4) It distributes the costs of accidents more widely across society.

37. What is the "enterprise risk theory" in vicarious liability?

The enterprise risk theory suggests that businesses should bear the costs of risks created by their operations, including those arising from employee misconduct. This theory justifies vicarious liability by arguing that employers are in the best position to spread the costs of accidents across the enterprise and ultimately to consumers. It views employee wrongdoing as an inevitable cost of doing business that should be internalized by the employer.

38. Can an employer be vicariously liable for an employee's actions on social media?

An employer may be held vicariously liable for an employee's social media actions if they were made within the scope of employment or in furtherance of the employer's interests. This could include posts made on official company accounts or personal posts that are closely related to the employee's job duties. However, personal posts unrelated to work are generally not considered within the scope of employment.

39. What is the "ostensible agency" doctrine in vicarious liability?

The "ostensible agency" doctrine, also known as apparent agency, can create vicarious liability when a person reasonably believes that someone is acting as an agent for another, even if no actual agency relationship exists. This often arises in healthcare settings, where hospitals may be held liable for the actions of independent contractor physicians if patients reasonably believed the physicians were hospital employees.

40. What is the "deep pocket" theory in relation to vicarious liability?

The "deep pocket" theory is not a legal doctrine but a practical consideration in vicarious liability cases. It refers to the tendency to pursue claims against employers rather than individual employees because employers typically have greater financial resources ("deeper pockets") to pay damages. While this is not a legal basis for vicarious liability, it often influences how cases are pursued in practice.

41. How does vicarious liability apply in cases of negligent hiring or retention?

While negligent hiring or retention is a form of direct liability rather than vicarious liability, it often arises in similar contexts. An employer can be held directly liable for harm caused by an employee if the employer negligently hired or retained an employee they knew or should have known posed a risk to others. This liability is based on the employer's own negligence in the hiring or retention process, not on the principle of respondeat superior.

42. What is the "enterprise liability" theory in vicarious liability?

Enterprise liability theory suggests that businesses should bear the costs of risks created by their operations, including those arising from employee misconduct. This theory justifies vicarious liability by arguing that employers are in the best position to spread the costs of accidents across the enterprise and ultimately to consumers. It views employee wrongdoing as an inevitable cost of doing business that should be internalized by the employer.

43. What is the "respondeat superior" doctrine in vicarious liability?

"Respondeat superior" is a Latin phrase meaning "let the master answer." It is the fundamental principle underlying vicarious liability, stating that an employer is responsible for the wrongful acts of their employees committed within the scope of employment. This doctrine is based on the idea that the employer, who benefits from the employee's work, should also bear the risks associated with that work.

44. What is the "scope creep" problem in vicarious liability?

"Scope creep" refers to the gradual expansion of what courts consider to be within the "scope of employment" for vicarious liability purposes. Over time, courts have sometimes broadened the interpretation of what activities are sufficiently connected to employment to justify imposing liability on employers. This trend can make it challenging for employers to predict when they might be held liable for employee actions.