❤️
Agency • Liability of Principal for Agent's Torts
AG#006
Legal Definition
An agent's actions are within the scope of a principal-agent relationship when: (1) the conduct was "of the kind" (i.e., within the job description) of the job the agent was hired to perform, and (2) if the agent's conduct was performed with the intent to benefit the principal, even in part.
Plain English Explanation
Humans aren't robots. They do not follow directions perfectly, nor do they always act predictably. Though principals are not liable for every action of their agents, liability can be applied so long as a couple factors are arguably present (and, on an exam, you will have to argue): (1) That the conduct that caused the harm was reasonably within the expected job duties of the employee, and (2) that the employee's motivations were to provide some value or benefit to their employer.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Bob is a janitor, hired specifically to mop the floors of a building. One day, walking by a window, Bob notices a large smudge on the window. Though Bob was never asked to clean windows, he sprays down the window and begins to wipe the smudge away. Suddenly, the window pops out of its frame, falls out, and crushes a visitor below. Result: Cleaning the window would arguably be within scope of a janitor, and thus the principal could be held liable for the crushed visitor even though Bob technically wasn't ever tasked with cleaning windows.
Hypo 2: Sam hires Bob to be a bike messenger. Bob is super lazy and decides, instead, to drive his car. While delivering a package, Bob runs over Amy. Result: Sam is not liable. Bob was specifically authorized to deliver packages via bicycle. The fact that Bob chose to use an unauthorized method to perform his job that differs so substantially from the one he was authorized to do means that Sam is not liable for the injuries suffered by Amy.
Hypo 3: Sam hires Bob to deliver packages in his car. While delivering packages, Bob sees his friend, Amy. Amy asks Bob if he can drive her to school. Bob says, "Sure, it is on the way to my next stop." Bob gets in a car accident and Amy is injured. Result: Though Bob was performing activities that were within his job duties when the accident occurred, his motivations for giving Amy a ride had nothing to do with trying to benefit Sam. Thus, Sam is not liable for Amy's injuries.
Hypo 2: Sam hires Bob to be a bike messenger. Bob is super lazy and decides, instead, to drive his car. While delivering a package, Bob runs over Amy. Result: Sam is not liable. Bob was specifically authorized to deliver packages via bicycle. The fact that Bob chose to use an unauthorized method to perform his job that differs so substantially from the one he was authorized to do means that Sam is not liable for the injuries suffered by Amy.
Hypo 3: Sam hires Bob to deliver packages in his car. While delivering packages, Bob sees his friend, Amy. Amy asks Bob if he can drive her to school. Bob says, "Sure, it is on the way to my next stop." Bob gets in a car accident and Amy is injured. Result: Though Bob was performing activities that were within his job duties when the accident occurred, his motivations for giving Amy a ride had nothing to do with trying to benefit Sam. Thus, Sam is not liable for Amy's injuries.
Related Concepts
What are the requirements for a principal-agent relationship to be established?
What is the difference between a frolic and a detour?
When are intentional torts considered within the scope of an agency relationship?
When is a borrowing principal liable for torts committed by a borrowed agent?
When is a principal liable for torts committed by an independent contractor?
When is a principal liable for torts committed by a sub-agent?
When is a principal vicariously liable for torts committed by its agent?
