Respondeat superior is a legal doctrine that evolved from the relationship between master and servant. The master benefits from the activities of the servant and so should also bear the responsibility for the servant who injures another whilst carrying out the master’s business. In more modern times, respondeat superior can apply in situations where one party is furthering the business interests of another – such as between agent and principal or employee and employer.
While understanding the intricacies of the respondeat superior doctrine is crucial, it’s equally important to be aware of other legal procedures and situations that can arise in Nevada. For instance, if you’ve been injured at work, understanding Nevada’s work injury laws can be invaluable. Similarly, being informed about the risks and consequences of DUI incidents in Vegas can help you navigate potential legal challenges. Moreover, if you find yourself in a vehicular accident, having knowledge about Nevada’s car accident negligence laws can be a significant advantage.
When an accident is caused by an employee during working hours, the potential exists for respondeat superior to apply and hold the employer liable for the damage. But the doctrine does not apply automatically. There must be an employer/employee relationship and the employee must be acting within the scope of the employment at the time the accident occurs.
An employee’s scope of employment consists of the duties and activities performed by the employee on behalf of an employer or in furtherance of an employer’s business. As long as the primary purpose of an employee’s actions is related to their employment, small deviations that may be considered non-business will not relieve an employer from respondeat superior liability.
A 2018 case decided by the 8th District Court in Clark County demonstrates just how conclusive the primary purpose of an employee’s actions is in determining employer liability. In Kaye v. JRJ Invs., the plaintiff was riding his bike past the exit of a BMW dealership when a dealership employee backed out of the parking lot, injuring the plaintiff.
One of the plaintiff’s theories of liability was respondeat superior. The facts showed that the employee was on a break from work, was in his own car, and going on a personal errand. The court held respondeat superior did not apply because the employee’s conduct did not have a business purpose so there was not sufficient employer control at the time of the accident. The court pointed out the employee was not paid during breaks – leaving open the possibility a salaried employee might be viewed differently.
Nevada courts have long held that an employee who is driving to or from work is not generally considered to be acting within the scope of employment. However, if an employee is running an errand for an employer after work or is conducting some business on behalf of an employer during non-business hours, then the employee is acting within the scope of employment until the employer’s business is completed.
The law says that when an employee is acting on behalf of an employer and causes harm to a third party, the employee’s actions are deemed to be those of the employer as well as their own. The liability imposed on an employer is indirect or vicarious because it attaches due to the relationship between the employer and the employee rather than the employer’s direct contribution to a third party’s injuries.
The rationale for holding employers liable for the actions of employees has to do with the benefit provided to an employer by having employees and the control an employer has over the activities of the employees.
Before an employer will be held liable for injuries caused by an employee, a party trying to establish respondeat superior must show that at the time of the accident:
For the doctrine of respondeat superior to apply, an employer must have control over the work activities of an employee. The issue of employer control distinguishes employees from other types of contract workers that may also be employed.
When considering the issue of employer control, it is useful to review Nevada’s wage and hour laws regarding independent contractors and how they are to be distinguished from employees. Persons are presumed to be independent contractors and not employees when they:
If employers control the factors distinguishing independent contractors from employees, they are exercising the kind of control over a worker that can establish the first element of respondeat superior.
Employers are generally not held responsible for the intentional actions of employees who cause injury to others. The Nevada Legislature has said employers are not liable for the injuries caused by the intentional conduct of an employee when the conduct is:
Whether an employee’s conduct is reasonably foreseeable is determined by what a person of ordinary intelligence and care could have expected the employee to do under the same circumstances. The Nevada Supreme Court case of Wood v. Safeway illustrates how the courts will determine whether an employee’s intentional acts are reasonably foreseeable by an employer.
Plaintiff Doe was a Safeway employee hired through a special program for placing workers with mental disabilities. Doe was sexually assaulted several times while at work by an employee of a janitorial company Safeway had hired to clean the store.
One of Doe’s claims was that the janitorial company was responsible for the employee’s criminal actions because it hired transient people who were not adequately supervised and it was foreseeable they might sexually harass vulnerable women.
In determining the intentional actions of the employee were not reasonably foreseeable, the court looked at what the company actually knew about the employee. The employee had no prior criminal record, and there had never been any indication of sexual harassment by the employee during the time he had worked for the janitorial company.
Any time someone is injured by someone else, the question should be asked whether the responsible party was working for an employer at the time the injury occurred. If the injury was accidental and the employee’s primary purpose was the business of the employer, respondeat superior will likely apply. If the injury was intentional, respondeat superior only applies if the employee’s actions should have been reasonably anticipated by the employer based on information known about the employee.
As founder of Gina Corena & Associates, she is dedicated to fighting for the rights of the people who suffer life-changing personal injuries in car, truck and motorcycle accidents as well as other types of personal injury. Gina feels fortunate to serve the Nevada community and hold wrongdoers accountable for their harm to her clients.
This was my first time using a lawyer, which I needed due a major car accident. They made everything simple and stress free, and I couldn’t be happier with the attentive care I received from everyone at the law office. Gresia was fantastic, and kept in touch regularly. She was professional, knowledgeable, and very kind. I would recommend them to anyone.
Gina and her crew are truly amazing. They exceeded my expectations. They kept in contact with me throughout the whole time and any questions I did have They would take the time and explain everything so I would know what to expect. I would highly recommend them at any time.
Thank you very much for the services everyone answered every single one of my calls and this firm took care of me from start to finish. Thank you so much Gina for taking on my case and assisting me I will recommend you to everyone.
I rarely do reviews but I want to share what an outstanding team Gina Corena has. Mahna Pourshaban did such an awesome job In helping us get our settlement, she has treated us like family since day 1 that we met her.. Me and my family want to tell u guys thank u from the bottom of our hearts.
Working with Gina was An amazing feeling as the client to know that my case is being handled professionally and to the best it can be ! Knowing that Gina can handle it gave me confidence and peace, 100 percent recommend Gina and her associates team !
GINA CORENA is the best attorney indeed! Thank you to her amazing team the attention to detail I received was incredible. 100% recommend to everyone!
My experience with Gina Corena’s office was amazing. They were all professional and were easy to reach out to during my whole case. I’d recommend their services 10/10!!
I'm really satisfied with the work these ladies provide. They’re Super reliable and Professional, Alexandra was the one that helped me with my case and she’s super nice and sweet. She made sure I was aware about all the updates with my case. Overall the work they provide to the citizens of Las Vegas is top notch. Thank you Gina Corena and associates.
This is the best company I have dealt with hands down. I am super thankful with them for all the work they did on behalf of my case. The process was rather simple and very well explained from start to finish. Thank you so much Gina Corena &. Associates. Thank you Kim for assisting in my case.
I received nothing but top notch service from this firm not once but twice please keep up the outstanding job customer service is very important to me and your firm went above and beyond again THANK YOU
Such a great law firm. This was my first time having to get a lawyer due to an auto accident and they explained all the ins and outs of my case and the process. I will definitively keep them in mind again for the future.
If I can give Gina’s firm 10 stars I would. They have the best customer service & most knowledgeable staff I’ve ever come across. The office is always clean and it has a lovely and positive vibe. Thank you to this amazing firm to make my experience fast and easy for me. Gina definitely knows how to care of her clients and treated me like family. I will recommended to my friends and family.
CALL US 24/7