Respondeat Superior: Health, Medicine, Nursing Research Paper

Respondeat Superior
Name
Institution
Due Date
Respondeat Superior
There have been news stories where employees have committed crimes or have been responsible for injurious negligence. In such instances, the aggrieved could either pursue the employee or the company/corporation that employs the individual. The question here is, is there a law or doctrine that should guide or offer guidance on the approach for such a scenario? Well, the doctrine known as Respondeat Superior is said to offer guidance on the same. Provided herein is a paper that describes this doctrine and provides two examples where this doctrine was applied. Further, an analysis of whether the doctrine was applied fairly for such cases will be provided.
Respondeat Superior is a term that elicits a lot of debate in many countries, especially among corporations. The doctrine of Respondeat Superior “permits the criminal prosecution of a corporation for the crimes of its employees absent of proof of corporate ratification or involvement of corporate officers” (Luskin, 2020). In the U.S., companies are thought to be legal persons who can commit crimes. Under the doctrine of Respondeat Superior, companies can be convicted for the crimes they commit or are party to, even when they are committed by their employees. Luskin continues to explain that “a corporation may be held criminally responsible for conduct that it specifically prohibited and that its employee went to great lengths to conceal.” The reasoning or justification for the above is that the prosecution of corporations will help ensure accountability on the part of corporations.
It should be noted that it matters the circumstances under which an employee commits a crime. First of all, if it is established that an employee possesses actual authority, the company will indeed be made to face criminal charges. In cases of actual authority, an employee is authorized by the corporation to act on its behalf. Every action they take is considered the company’s. Therefore, if they happen to commit a crime, then the corporation is considered guilty of the said crime. As already indicated, the corporation will be considered guilty absent of proof of benefit or involvement. However, there are instances when employees possess apparent authority. Apparent authority denotes that a third party considers an employee to be part of a corporation and thus believes they possess the authority to act on behalf of the company. In such an instance, the corporation will still be held liable. In both instances, the employee is said to assume the corporation’s position and exercising the powers of the same.
However, as Loo (2020) notes, corporations have devised ways to bypass the doctrine of Re...