Employer Liability: Civil Liability for Acts of Employees

An important part of our practice is to evaluate potential sources of recovery for the criminal acts of others.  Very often, if a crime victim is left solely to the resources of the criminal, him (or her) self, the crime victim will be left with very little recourse.  Criminals very often are, at their nature, desperate, irresponsible individuals with little or no resources, including viable insurance, upon which a crime victim can gain remuneration for his or her (or its) injuries.  Accordingly, the law imposes responsibility upon numerous other entities in our society, which, although may not be liable from a criminal perspective, can be deemed liable from a civil perspective, and upon whom civil liability may be cast.

Course and Scope of Employment

An example of this circumstance can be seen in the responsibility of an employer for the criminal acts, such as theft, of an employee.  Very often, an employer will defend upon the ground that the employee acted outside the course and scope of the employment, and, for that reason, the employer should not be deemed to have vicarious liability.  Nevertheless, there is support for the proposition that liability can be imposed on the part of an employer for the criminal or tortuous acts of an employee if 1) the conduct is of the kind he was employed to perform, 2) the conduct occurs substantially within the time and space limits authorized or required by the wok to be performed, and 3) the conduct is activated at least in part by a purpose to serve the employer. 

Vicarious Liability:  Even If Not Authorized

Thus, for example vicarious liability of an employer may be possible for employee theft when the employee was placed in charge of an account.  Obviously, the employer most likely did not “authorize” the employee to steal the customer’s money.  Nevertheless, where an employee was placed in a position that set the stage for the criminal act, it may very well be possible to impose liability upon the employer, itself, based upon straight vicarious liability, or based upon a negligent hiring or retention claim, if there was evidence that the employee had problems of this sort in the past of which the employer either knew or should have known. Obtaining punitive damages against the employer under these circumstances may be a different challenge altogether.  However, if there is any evidence that the employer participated in, condoned, or ratified the conduct, a basis for punitive damages may be established as well.  The major point is that responsibility for criminal activity may not stop at the criminal, alone, and other sources should be examined to determine who else may be responsible for injury or loss to a crime victim. If you have a situation requiring legal representation get your no-obligation, free case evaluation or contact Corless Zinober, Florida Trial Lawyers, at 866-969-2889.