respondeat superior doctrine in New Hampshire

2016Although we have utilized this test in cases involving claims predicated on the doctrine of respondeat superior, see, e.g., id.; Porter v. City of Manchester, 151 N.H. 30, 39-40 (2004), we agree with the trial court that it is instructive here.

2007Serving the City The third element of the respondeat superior test asks whether the conduct “is actuated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the employer.” Porter, 151 N.H. at 40 .

2011Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, “an employer may be held vicariously responsible for the tortious acts of its employee if the employee was acting within the scope of his or her employment when his or her tortious act injured the plaintiff.” Pierson v. Hubbard, 147 N.H. 760, 766 (2002).

2004Because we find that wrongful termination is a cause of action in tort and the city’s liability is predicated upon the doctrine of respondeat superior, see id., we conclude that the trial court erred by failing to apply respondeat superior in this case, see Nilsson, 150 N.H. at 400 .

1995See Richard v. Company, 79 N.H. 380, 383-84 , 109 A. 88, 91 (1920).

1995See Richard v. Company, 79 N.H. 380, 383-84 , 109 A. 88, 91 (1920).

2009Cf. Robbins v. Seekamp, 122 N.H. 318, 322 (1982) (plaintiffs failure to use words “products liability” in pleadings did not preclude claim for negligent design and manufacture where language tracked statute supplying cause of action). *406 14 P. Loughlin, New Hampshire Practice, Local Government Law § 1041, at 297 (1995); see Cutter v. Town of Farmington, 126 N.H. 836, 840 (1985). *405 The basis for a claim of negligent employment or supervision brought against an employer where the employee harms a third party is not the vicarious liability of the doctrine of respondeat superior, but a separa

2009Cf. Robbins v. Seekamp, 122 N.H. 318, 322 (1982) (plaintiffs failure to use words “products liability” in pleadings did not preclude claim for negligent design and manufacture where language tracked statute supplying cause of action). *406 14 P. Loughlin, New Hampshire Practice, Local Government Law § 1041, at 297 (1995); see Cutter v. Town of Farmington, 126 N.H. 836, 840 (1985). *405 The basis for a claim of negligent employment or supervision brought against an employer where the employee harms a third party is not the vicarious liability of the doctrine of respondeat superior, but a separa

2002“Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer may be held vicariously responsible for the tortious acts of an employee committed incidental to or during the scope of employment.” Trahan-Laroche v. Lockheed Sanders, 139 N.H. 483, 485 (1995).

2002See Daigle v. City of Portsmouth, 129 N.H. 561, 579 (1987).