Vicarious Liability Case Summary

Alexis Moss likely will not succeed in a claim of vicarious liability against Hitch, when Piper drove the vehicle involved in the accident that injured Alexis. The Alabama Supreme Court has noted that, “under the doctrine of respondeat superior a principal is vicariously liable for the torts of its agent if the tortious acts are committed within the line and scope of the agent's employment.” Martin v. Goodies Distrib., 695 So. 2d 1175, 1177 (Ala 1997). Vicarious liability has two requirements: 1) whether an agent is an employee or independent contractor, and 2) the scope of the agent’s employment. Id. Because Piper met the independent contractor requirements and even if Piper is considered an employee, Piper acted outside of her scope of employment, a court likely will not find Hitch vicariously liable.
A. Employee vs. Independent Contractor …show more content…
Under Alabama law, “to recover against a defendant under respondeat superior, the plaintiff must establish the status of employer and employee – master and servant.” Hendley v. Springhill Mem’l Hosp., 575 So. 2d 547, 550 (Ala 1990). The Supreme Court of Alabama implemented a test for whether an agent is an employee or independent contractor. Martin, 695 So.2d at 1177. The test is, “whether the [employer] has reserved the right of control over the means and method by which the [employee]’s work will be performed, and whether the right of control is actually exercised.” Id. The factors for determining whether an individual or an entity has retained the right of control includes: “(1) direct evidence demonstrating a right or an exercise of control; (2) the method of payment for services; (3) whether equipment is furnished; and (4) whether the other party has the right to terminate the employment.” Susan Schein Inc. v. Rushing, 77 So.3d 1203, 1208 (Ala. Civ. App.