How does a master-servant relationship affect liability for an agent’s harmful conduct?

In Anglo-American common law, the master-servant relationship is central to determining an employer's responsibility for an agent's harmful conduct. Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, a master is held vicariously liable for the torts committed by a servant, provided the conduct occurs within the scope of employment.1

This liability is a form of strict liability, meaning the master is responsible regardless of their own personal fault. The doctrine is rooted in the principle that because the master exercises control over the servant, they should bear the financial burden for harm caused to third parties during the course of that work.21

Key requirements for this liability include:
* Master-Servant Relationship: There must be a degree of physical control by the master over the servant, distinguishing the servant from an independent contractor, for whom the employer typically bears no responsibility.21
* Scope of Employment: The harmful act must not be a serious departure from authorized tasks in terms of manner or space, and it must be motivated, at least in part, by a desire to serve the master.1

If no master-servant relationship exists, a principal’s liability for an agent's torts is significantly more restricted.1