respondeat superior doctrine in Ohio

2026Accordingly, the court must first determine whether CoreCivic is an independent contractor or an agent of defendant. {¶7} “Generally, an employer or principal is vicariously liable for the torts of its employees or agents under the doctrine of respondeat superior, but not for the negligence of an independent contractor over whom it retained no right to control the mode and manner of doing the contracted-for work.” Clark v. Southview Hasp. & Family Health Ctr., 68 Ohio St.3d 435 , 438 (1994). {¶8} “The Ohio Supreme Court has set out a test to distinguish an agency relationship (sometimes also r

2026“Generally, an employer or principal is vicariously liable for the torts of its employees or agents under the doctrine of respondeat superior . . . .” Clark v. Southview Hosp. & Family Health Ctr., 68 Ohio St.3d 435, 438 (1994).

2025“It is well-established that in order for an employer to be liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, the tort of the employee must be committed within the scope of employment.” Byrd v. Faber, 57 Ohio St.3d 56, 58 (1991). “[A]s a matter of law, a master is not liable for the negligence of his servant while the latter is driving to work at a fixed place of employment, where such driving involves no special benefit to the master other than the making of the servant’s services available to the master at the place where they are needed.” Boch v. New York Life Ins.

2023Pickaway No. 18CA15, 2019-Ohio- 3260, at ¶ 22, this court explained: Ross App. No. 22CA26 16 The doctrine of respondeat superior is expressed in the Restatement of the Law 2d, Agency (1958) 481, Section 219(1), which states as follows: “A master is subject to liability for the torts of his servants committed while acting in the scope of their employment.” Ohio law provides, “[i]t is well-established that in order for an employer to be liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, the tort of the employee must be committed within the scope of employment.” {¶28} Additionally, it is “axiomati

2026Ctr., 2004- Ohio-6072, ¶ 10 (10th Dist.). {¶ 23} “Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, a hospital is liable for the negligent acts of its employees.” Berdyck v. Shinde, 66 Ohio St.3d 573, 578 (1993), citing Klema v. St.

2023However, under the doctrine of respondeat superior, a hospital “is liable for the negligent acts of its employees.” Berdyck Case No. 2019-00852JD -10- DECISION v. Shinde, 66 Ohio St.3d 573, 577 , 613 N.E.2d 1014 (1993), citing Klema v. St.

2023Osborne v. Lyles, 63 Ohio St.3d 326, 330 , 587 N.E.2d 825 (1992); see Morrison v. Horseshoe Casino, 2020-Ohio-4131 , 157 N.E.3d 406, ¶ 94 (8th Dist.) (“For an employer * * * to be vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, the tort committed by the employee must be committed within the scope of employment.”).

2023Osborne v. Lyles, 63 Ohio St.3d 326, 330 , 587 N.E.2d 825 (1992); see Morrison v. Horseshoe Casino, 2020-Ohio-4131 , 157 N.E.3d 406, ¶ 94 (8th Dist.) (“For an employer * * * to be vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, the tort committed by the employee must be committed within the scope of employment.”).

2026Orac v. Montefiore Found., 2024-Ohio-4904 , ¶ 22 (8th Dist.), quoting Albain v. Flower Hosp., 50 Ohio St.3d 251, 255 (1990) (“In the employment-law context, ‘the most common form of derivative or vicarious liability is that imposed by the law of agency, through the doctrine of respondeat superior.’”) Therefore, “‘a principal is vicariously liable only when an agent could be held directly liable.’” Id., quoting Natl.

2026Orac v. Montefiore Found., 2024-Ohio-4904 , ¶ 22 (8th Dist.), quoting Albain v. Flower Hosp., 50 Ohio St.3d 251, 255 (1990) (“In the employment-law context, ‘the most common form of derivative or vicarious liability is that imposed by the law of agency, through the doctrine of respondeat superior.’”) Therefore, “‘a principal is vicariously liable only when an agent could be held directly liable.’” Id., quoting Natl.

2020See Comer v. 3 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS Risko, 106 Ohio St.3d 185 , 2005-Ohio-4559 , 833 N.E.2d 712 , ¶ 18 (noting that under the doctrine of respondeat superior, a principal is not liable for torts of an independent contractor over whom it retained no control).

2014For purposes of Section 2307.22 of the Revised Code, a principal and agent, a master and servant, or other persons having a vicarious liability relationship shall constitute a single party when determining percentages of tortious conduct in a tort action in which vicarious liability is asserted. {¶48} The Supreme Court of Ohio has stated that, “an employer or principal is vicariously liable for the torts if its employees or agents under the doctrine of respondeat superior.” Comer v. Risko, 106 Ohio St.3d 185 , 2005-Ohio-4559 , 833 N.E.2d 712 .

2023Cuyahoga No. 70712, 1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 5784 , 16 (Dec. 19, 1996) (“Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, without an underlying tort claim against an employee, a plaintiff has no claim against the employee’s employer.”), citing Strock v. Pressnell, 38 Ohio St. 3d 207, 217 , 527 N.E.2d 1235 (1988) (“It is axiomatic that for the doctrine of respondeat superior to apply, an employee must be liable for a tort committed in the scope of his employment.”).

2023Cuyahoga No. 70712, 1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 5784 , 16 (Dec. 19, 1996) (“Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, without an underlying tort claim against an employee, a plaintiff has no claim against the employee’s employer.”), citing Strock v. Pressnell, 38 Ohio St. 3d 207, 217 , 527 N.E.2d 1235 (1988) (“It is axiomatic that for the doctrine of respondeat superior to apply, an employee must be liable for a tort committed in the scope of his employment.”).

2025“The rule of proximate cause ‘requires that the injury sustained shall be the natural and probable consequence of the negligence alleged; that is, such No. 24AP-84 22 consequence as under the surrounding circumstances of the particular case might, and should have been foreseen or anticipated by the wrongdoer as likely to follow his negligent act.’ ” (Further quotation marks deleted and citations omitted.) Jeffers v. Olexo, 43 Ohio St.3d 140, 143 (1989), quoting Ross v. Nutt, 177 Ohio St. 113 , 114 (1964). {¶ 72} Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, a hospital is liable for the negligence

2024“The rule of proximate cause ‘requires that the injury sustained shall be the natural and probable consequence of the negligence alleged; that is, such consequence as under the surrounding circumstances of the particular case might, and should have been foreseen or anticipated by the wrongdoer as likely to follow his negligent act.’ ” Jeffers v. Olexo, 43 Ohio St.3d 140, 143 (1989), quoting Ross v. Nutt, 177 Ohio St. 113 , 114 (1964) (further quotation and citation omitted). {¶ 39} Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, a hospital is liable for the negligence of its employees.

2024Hosp., 71 Ohio App.3d 535, 537-38 (10th Dist.1991).

2021Hosp., 71 Ohio App.3d 535, 537-38 (10th Dist.1991), citing Albain v. Flower Hosp., 50 Ohio St.3d 251, 254-55 (1990).

2023Osborne v. Lyles, 63 Ohio St.3d 326, 330 , 587 N.E.2d 825 (1992); see Morrison v. Horseshoe Casino, 2020-Ohio-4131 , 157 N.E.3d 406, ¶ 94 (8th Dist.) (“For an employer * * * to be vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, the tort committed by the employee must be committed within the scope of employment.”).

2023Osborne v. Lyles, 63 Ohio St.3d 326, 330 , 587 N.E.2d 825 (1992); see Morrison v. Horseshoe Casino, 2020-Ohio-4131 , 157 N.E.3d 406, ¶ 94 (8th Dist.) (“For an employer * * * to be vicariously liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, the tort committed by the employee must be committed within the scope of employment.”).

2019No. 14AP-153, 2014-Ohio-4359, ¶ 8 , citing Pusey v. Bator, 94 Ohio St.3d 275, 278 (2002) (and adding at ¶ 16 that "the doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply" with regard to alleged negligence by the independent contractor); see also, e.g., Hughes v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Ct. of Cl.

2014Employee v. Independent Contractor {¶61} Generally, while an employer is vicariously liable for the negligent acts of its employees committed within the scope of employment under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer of an independent contractor is not -34- Case No. 10-13-11 liable for the negligent acts of the independent contractor.10 Pusey v. Bator, 94 Ohio St.3d 275, 278 (2002); Clark v. Southview Hosp. & Family Health Ctr., 68 Ohio St.3d 435, 438 (1994). {¶62} To determine whether a party is an employee or an independent contractor, we must resolve the central question of “who

2017“In order to establish a claim under the doctrine of respondeat superior, it must be demonstrated that a principal-agent relationship existed, and that tortious conduct was committed by the agent while in the scope of his agency.” Hanson v. Kynast, 24 Ohio St.3d 171, 173 , 494 N.E.2d 1091 (1986), fn. 4, citing Baird v. Sickler, 69 Ohio St.2d 652 , 433 N.E.2d 593 (1982). {¶25} “An agency relationship is created ‘if, but only if, there is an understanding between the parties which, as interpreted by the court, creates a fiduciary relation in which the fiduciary is subject to the directions of th

2017“In order to establish a claim under the doctrine of respondeat superior, it must be demonstrated that a principal-agent relationship existed, and that tortious conduct was committed by the agent while in the scope of his agency.” Hanson v. Kynast, 24 Ohio St.3d 171, 173 , 494 N.E.2d 1091 (1986), fn. 4, citing Baird v. Sickler, 69 Ohio St.2d 652 , 433 N.E.2d 593 (1982). {¶25} “An agency relationship is created ‘if, but only if, there is an understanding between the parties which, as interpreted by the court, creates a fiduciary relation in which the fiduciary is subject to the directions of th

2024This is best illustrated by starting with the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in Losito and working our way forward. {¶ 22} In Losito, 136 Ohio St. 183 , the Ohio Supreme Court made several points that have helped shape the doctrine of respondeat superior.

2024First, the Court held that “[w]hen, under the doctrine of respondeat superior, a master becomes liable in damages for personal injuries caused solely by the negligent act of his servant, the latter is primarily liable and the former secondarily liable to the injured party[.]” Id. at paragraph one of the syllabus.

2023The court concluded that the physician-employee's potential immunity as a state employee was "immaterial" to his private employer's vicarious liability, because "[a]n employee's immunity from liability is no shield to the employer's liability for acts under the doctrine of respondeat superior." Id. at ¶ 21, 28, citing Adams v. Peoples, 18 Ohio St.3d 140, 142-43 (1985). {¶ 60} The instant case is distinguishable from Sawicki.

2022We concluded that the employee’s potential immunity as a state employee was “immaterial” to his private employer’s vicarious liability, id. at ¶ 21, because “[a]n employee’s immunity from liability is no shield to the employer’s liability for acts under the doctrine of respondeat superior,” id. at ¶ 28, citing Adams v. Peoples, 18 Ohio St.3d 140, 142-143 , 480 N.E.2d 428 (1985).

2023Franklin No. 03AP-205, 2003-Ohio-5343, ¶ 6 , citing Pretty v. Mueller, 132 Ohio App.3d 717, 723 , 726 N.E.2d 503 (1st Dist.1997).

2011Dist. (1978), 55 Ohio St.2d 72 , syllabus (“[B]ased upon the doctrine of respondeat superior, as between the same parties, a judgment in favor of the servant on the merits renders invalid any judgment against the master.”); Pretty v. Mueller (1997), 132 Ohio App.3d 717, 723 (providing that an employer “cannot be independently found liable under respondeat superior” if the accused employee “has been found to have no liability”).

2019Allen No. 1-15-42, 2016-Ohio-253, ¶ 20 , citing Cooke v. Montgomery Cty., 158 Ohio App.3d 139 , 2004-Ohio-3780, ¶ 17 (2d Dist.). “‘An employee’s conduct is within the scope of his employment if it is the type of action which he is employed to perform, occurs substantially within the authorized limits of time and space [of employment], and is actuated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the master.’” Id., quoting Armaly v. Wapakoneta, 3d Dist.

2019Allen No. 1-15-42, 2016-Ohio-253, ¶ 20 , citing Cooke v. Montgomery Cty., 158 Ohio App.3d 139 , 2004-Ohio-3780, ¶ 17 (2d Dist.). “‘An employee’s conduct is within the scope of his employment if it is the type of action which he is employed to perform, occurs substantially within the authorized limits of time and space [of employment], and is actuated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the master.’” Id., quoting Armaly v. Wapakoneta, 3d Dist.

2013See also Groob v. Keybank, 108 Ohio St.3d 348, 358 , 2006-Ohio-1189 , ¶ 58 ("an employer is not liable under a theory of respondeat superior unless its employee is acting within the scope of her employment when committing a tort-merely being aided by her employment status is not enough"). {¶ 61} In Byrd, the Supreme Court of Ohio found that a cleric's nonconsensual sexual conduct with a parishioner's spouse was an independent self-serving act that did not facilitate or promote characteristic church activity, and that the church was not subject to liability under the doctrine of respondeat supe

2008The trial court did not err by entering summary judgment in favor of Vanderwist on this claim. {¶ 21} Whelan claims Vanderwist was liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. "`It is well-established that in order for an employer to be liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, the tort of the employee must be committed within the *Page 9 scope of employment.'" Groob v. KeyBank , 108 Ohio St.3d 348 , 2006-Ohio-1189 , at ¶ 42 .

2025See Meehan v. AMN Healthcare, Inc., 2012- Ohio-557, ¶ 11 (1st Dist.), citing Cope v. Miami Valley Hosp., 2011-Ohio-4869, ¶ 18 (2d Dist.) (“Medical claims alleging the negligence of a hospital employee, such as a nurse, are governed by the doctrine of respondeat superior . . . [in which] a plaintiff may elect to sue the employer or both the employer and the employee.”).

2012Thus, she argues, Wuerth was not applicable and summary judgment should not have been granted. {¶18} In Cope v. Miami Valley Hosp., 195 Ohio App.3d 513 , 2011-Ohio-4869 (2d Dist.), the Second District addressed this issue.