Respondeat
Dictionary of Terms and Phrases Used in American or English Jurisprudence · Benjamin Vaughan Abbott · 1879
Dictionary of Terms and Phrases Used in American or English Jurisprudence
Let him answer
Respondeat ouster. That he answer over. The form of the judgment anciently rendered for the plaintiff upon a plea in abatement, that the defendant answer over; that is, interpose a better plea. The phrase has been generally adopted as the name for judgments of dilatory plea, the form of the judgment may be that the defendant answer over, — respondeat ouster; and this not being a final judgment, the pleading is resumed, and the action proceeds.
Respondeat superior
Let the master answer. The principal or master is responsible for the acts done by his agent or servant, as such. This rule is of almost universal application, whether the act be one of omission or commission, whether negligent, fraudulent, or deceitful, provided it is not the wilful, wanton act of the servant. The fact that the master did not authorize the act, or even know of its performance, makes no difference. Even if he disapproved of and forbade it, he is still liable, if the act or neglect of the servant was done in the scope of the employment or agency. The reason upon which the nile rests is, that, as the master has the selection of those admitted to his employment, he ought to be responsible for the results, if, through want of due inquiry or otherwise, he selects an improper person. He is thus made responsible only for his own want of care. The tendency of modern decisions is to narrow the application of this maxim in several respects. As is above explained, if the act of the servant or agent be wilful, and not done in the ordinary scope of his employment or authority, the master cannot be held. Besides this limitation, an exception is made in favor of public officers, such as judges, magistrates, &c., who are not held responsible for the malfeasance of persons whom they are compelled to employ in inferior ministerial capacities. Bailey u.
New York, 3 mil{N. Y.), 531; 2 Den. 433.
A master is not now held responsible (although formerly he might be) for an injury inflicted by one servant upon a fellow-servant engaged in the same common employment.