Why can a principal be liable for a servant’s tort committed during employment?

In Anglo-American law, a principal (or master) can be held liable for a servant’s torts under the doctrine of respondeat superior, which translates to "let the master answer". This is a form of vicarious liability, meaning the employer is held responsible for the employee's actions regardless of the employer's own personal fault.123

The rationale for this liability is rooted in several principles:

• Control: Because the master exercises physical control over the servant’s tasks, it is considered just that the master bears the financial responsibility for harm caused by those activities.1
• Legal Maxim: The doctrine aligns with the maxim qui facit per alium, facit per se ("he who acts through another, acts himself").1
• Social Policy: Historically, the rule was developed to ensure that employers do not escape financial responsibility for the actions of their employees, often addressing the practical reality that employers have "deep pockets" compared to individual servants.32

For this liability to apply, the tort must be committed within the course of employment, typically defined as conduct that is not a serious departure from authorized tasks and is motivated, at least in part, by a desire to serve the employer.1