respondeat superior doctrine in Missouri

1996The so-called McGinnis Doctrine is found in this language: “We are firmly of the opinion that in cases where the right to recover is dependent solely upon the doctrine of respondeat superior, and there is a finding that the servant through whose negligence the master is attempted to be held liable, has not been negligent, as was true in the case in hand, there should be no judgment against the master.” McGinnis, 98 S.W. at 594 .

1989This court in Ingels v. Citizens State Bank, 632 S.W.2d 9, 12-13 (Mo.App.1982) addresses this issue by saying: In the early case of McGinnis v. Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry., 200 Mo. 347 , 98 S.W. 590, 594 (1906), it is said, “... [I]t is generally held that, where the action is one involving the doctrine of respondeat superior, a judgment in separate actions acquitting the servant bars the action against the master and vice versa." [Italics added.] See, analogously, 46 Am.

2025Southers, 263 S.W.3d at 609 .

2017Thus, “[b]ecause the defense of official immunity is personal to a public employee, it cannot extend to protect his employing governmental entity sued under the doctrine of respondeat superior.” Id.

1992Moran does stand for the proposition that "where the right to recover is dependent entirely on the doctrine of respondeat superior and there is a finding of no negligence by the servant there should be no judgement against the master." Id. at 232-33 (emphasis added).

1992Moran does stand for the proposition that “where the right to recover is dependent entirely on the doctrine of respondeat superior and there is a finding of no negligence by the servant there should be no judgement against the master.” Id. at 232-33 (emphasis added).

1997P.S. v. Psychiatric Coverage, Ltd., 887 S.W.2d 622, 624 (Mo.App.

1995P.S. v. Psychiatric Coverage, Ltd., 887 S.W.2d 622, 624 (Mo.App.E.D.1994).

2018It is true that "liability of an independent contractor cannot flow from a theory of respondeat superior." Blunkall v. Heavy & Specialized Haulers, Inc. , 398 S.W.3d 534 , 542 (Mo. App. S.D. 2013), but claiming that the existence of an independent contractor relationship prevents an agency relationship reveals a flawed understanding of agency principles. "[A]n employer is liable under the theory of respondeat superior for damages attributable to the misconduct of an employee or agent acting within the course and scope of the employment or agency." McHaffie by and Through McHaffie v. Bunch , 89

2005See McHaffie v. Bunch, 891 S.W.2d 822, 825 [1] (Mo.banc 1995).

1996This argument ignores the fact that Greene (defendant in the first action) was acting solely as an agent of the City (defendant in the second > action). “[W]here the action is one involving the doctrine of respondeat superior, a judgment in separate actions acquitting the servant bars the action against the master and vice versa” Berwald v. Ratliff, 782 S.W.2d 709, 711 (Mo.App.1989)(quoting Ingels v. Citizens State Bank, 632 S.W.2d 9, 12-13 (Mo.App.1982)) (emphasis in original).

1989This court in Ingels v. Citizens State Bank, 632 S.W.2d 9, 12-13 (Mo.App.1982) addresses this issue by saying: In the early case of McGinnis v. Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry., 200 Mo. 347 , 98 S.W. 590, 594 (1906), it is said, “... [I]t is generally held that, where the action is one involving the doctrine of respondeat superior, a judgment in separate actions acquitting the servant bars the action against the master and vice versa." [Italics added.] See, analogously, 46 Am.

1987See Williams v. Venture Stores, Inc., 673 S.W.2d 480, 482 [2] (Mo.App.1984).

1987See, Williams v. Venture Stores, Inc., 673 S.W.2d 480, 483 [2] (Mo.App.1984); Caciop-po v. Kansas City Public Co., 234 S.W.2d 799 , 803[14] (Mo.App.1950).

2018Cf. Trinity Lutheran Church v. Lipps , 68 S.W.3d 552 , 557 (Mo. App. E.D. 2001) ("the doctrine of respondeat superior ... is derived from the principle that the master, or the employer, controls the actions of the servants, or employees, and that the servants' actions are thereby imputed to the master" and the doctrine "is inapplicable unless a master-servant relationship exists between the parties").

2018Cf. Trinity Lutheran Church v. Lipps , 68 S.W.3d 552 , 557 (Mo. App. E.D. 2001) ("the doctrine of respondeat superior ... is derived from the principle that the master, or the employer, controls the actions of the servants, or employees, and that the servants' actions are thereby imputed to the master" and the doctrine "is inapplicable unless a master-servant relationship exists between the parties").

2013Tuttle, 964 S.W.2d at 517 .

2008“Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer is held responsible for the misconduct of an employee where that employee is acting within the course and scope of his employment.” Tuttle v. Muenks, 964 S.W.2d 514, 517 (Mo.App.

2008Davis-Bey v. Mo. Dept. of Corr., 944 S.W.2d 294 , 298 n. 5 (Mo.App.1997).

2000Davis-Bey v. Missouri Dept. of Correction, 944 S.W.2d 294, 298 (Mo.App.

2000Id.

1996Studebaker v. Nettie’s Flower Garden, Inc., 842 S.W.2d 227, 229 (Mo.App.1992).

2025However, the Supreme Court of Missouri in /nvestors Title Co. v. Hammonds held that a governmental entity may be “an officer” under the meaning of section 516.130(1) when suit is brought against the entity for the actions of its employee acting in his or her “official capacity.” 217 S.W.3d 288, 298-99 (Mo. banc 2007). 5 Furthermore, it is well established that a respondeat superior claim cannot exist without a viable underlying negligence suit against the principal actor.

2023See id.; Price, 616 S.W.3d at 309; see also Weicht, 32 S.W.3d at 598 .

2021Neurosurgery, Inc., 714 S.W.2d 231, 232-33 (Mo. App. E.D. 1986) (citation omitted); accord Stanton v. Hart, 356 S.W.3d 330, 338 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011) (“’If an employee is exonerated from liability because the employee has not committed a tort,’ the employer is also exonerated.” (citation omitted)); Howard v. Youngman, 81 S.W.3d 101, 117 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002); Arnold v. Erkmann, 934 S.W.2d 621, 631 (Mo. App. E.D. 1996).

2021Neurosurgery, Inc., 714 S.W.2d 231, 232-33 (Mo. App. E.D. 1986) (citation omitted); accord Stanton v. Hart, 356 S.W.3d 330, 338 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011) (“’If an employee is exonerated from liability because the employee has not committed a tort,’ the employer is also exonerated.” (citation omitted)); Howard v. Youngman, 81 S.W.3d 101, 117 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002); Arnold v. Erkmann, 934 S.W.2d 621, 631 (Mo. App. E.D. 1996).

2021Ctr., 621 S.W.3d 36 , 43 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021) (“‘where the right to recover is dependent entirely on the doctrine of respondeat superior and there is a finding of no negligence by the servant there should be no judgment against the master’” (citations omitted)); 10 Kamerick v. Dorman, 907 S.W.2d 264, 267 (Mo. App. W.D. 1995) (“A consortium claim is derivative from the injured spouse's claim and depends on the validity of the underlying claim.

2021Neurosurgery, Inc., 714 S.W.2d 231, 232-33 (Mo. App. E.D. 1986) (citation omitted); accord Stanton v. Hart, 356 S.W.3d 330, 338 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011) (“’If an employee is exonerated from liability because the employee has not committed a tort,’ the employer is also exonerated.” (citation omitted)); Howard v. Youngman, 81 S.W.3d 101, 117 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002); Arnold v. Erkmann, 934 S.W.2d 621, 631 (Mo. App. E.D. 1996).

2020Exch., 162 S.W.3d at 82-87 (insurer had a duty to defend where a claim of negligent supervision, although inartfully drafted, was potentially within the policy’s coverage even though an alternative respondeat superior claim beyond coverage was also asserted).

2013Co., 366 S.W.3d 116, 120 (Mo.App.

2006As set out above, in the absence of a “borrowed servant” relationship, Respondent is responsible for the negligent acts of its employees under the doctrine of respondeat superior. “[RJespondeat superior imposes vicarious Lability on employers for the negligent acts or omissions of employees or agents as long as the acts or omissions are committed within the scope of the employment or agency.” Lindquist v. Scott Radiological Group, Inc., 168 S.W.3d 635, 655-56 (Mo.App.