respondeat superior doctrine in Virginia

2003However, it is well settled in Virginia that “under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer is liable for the tortious act of his employee if the employee was performing his employer’s business and acting within the scope of his employment.” Kensington Associates v. West, 234 Va. 430, 432 , 362 S.E.2d 900, 901 (1987) (citing McNeill v. Spindler, 191 Va. 685, 694 , 62 S.E.2d 13, 17 (1950)).

2003However, it is well settled in Virginia that “under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer is liable for the tortious act of his employee if the employee was performing his employer’s business and acting within the scope of his employment.” Kensington Associates v. West, 234 Va. 430, 432 , 362 S.E.2d 900, 901 (1987) (citing McNeill v. Spindler, 191 Va. 685, 694 , 62 S.E.2d 13, 17 (1950)).

2018Instead, under the traditional "doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer is liable for the tortious act of his employee if the employee was performing his employer's business and acting within the scope of his employment." Kensington Assocs. v. West , 234 Va. 430 , 432, 362 S.E.2d 900 (1987).

2018Instead, under the traditional "doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer is liable for the tortious act of his employee if the employee was performing his employer's business and acting within the scope of his employment." Kensington Assocs. v. West , 234 Va. 430 , 432, 362 S.E.2d 900 (1987).

2018To put the matter succinctly, "[t]he doctrine of respondeat superior applies only when the relation of master and servant is shown to exist between the wrongdoer and the person sought to be charged for the result of some neglect or wrong at the time and in respect to the very transaction out of which the injury arose ." Manuel v. Cassada , 190 Va. 906 , 913, 59 S.E.2d 47 (1950) (emphasis in original) (citation omitted); see also Barnes v. Hampton , 149 Va. 740 , 744-45, 141 S.E. 836 (1928) (same); Blair , 121 Va. at 308 , 93 S.E. 632 (same).

2018To put the matter succinctly, "[t]he doctrine of respondeat superior applies only when the relation of master and servant is shown to exist between the wrongdoer and the person sought to be charged for the result of some neglect or wrong at the time and in respect to the very transaction out of which the injury arose ." Manuel v. Cassada , 190 Va. 906 , 913, 59 S.E.2d 47 (1950) (emphasis in original) (citation omitted); see also Barnes v. Hampton , 149 Va. 740 , 744-45, 141 S.E. 836 (1928) (same); Blair , 121 Va. at 308 , 93 S.E. 632 (same).

2024Under “the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer is liable for the tortious acts of its employee if the employee was performing his employer’s business and acting within the -6- scope of his employment when the tortious acts were committed.” Plummer v. Center Psychiatrists, Ltd., 252 Va. 233, 235 (1996).

2000In this procedural posture, the issue presented in this case is whether the facts alleged in the motion for judgment are sufficient to support the plain *526 tiff’s legal conclusion that the employee acted within the scope of his employment when he committed the wrongful acts against the plaintiff and, thus, raise a material question of fact not amenable to resolution by summary judgment. 2 In Plummer , we held that an allegation that the employee, a therapist, had engaged in an improper sexual relationship with a patient stated a cause of action against his employer under the doctrine of resp

2018To put the matter succinctly, "[t]he doctrine of respondeat superior applies only when the relation of master and servant is shown to exist between the wrongdoer and the person sought to be charged for the result of some neglect or wrong at the time and in respect to the very transaction out of which the injury arose ." Manuel v. Cassada , 190 Va. 906 , 913, 59 S.E.2d 47 (1950) (emphasis in original) (citation omitted); see also Barnes v. Hampton , 149 Va. 740 , 744-45, 141 S.E. 836 (1928) (same); Blair , 121 Va. at 308 , 93 S.E. 632 (same).

2018To put the matter succinctly, "[t]he doctrine of respondeat superior applies only when the relation of master and servant is shown to exist between the wrongdoer and the person sought to be charged for the result of some neglect or wrong at the time and in respect to the very transaction out of which the injury arose ." Manuel v. Cassada , 190 Va. 906 , 913, 59 S.E.2d 47 (1950) (emphasis in original) (citation omitted); see also Barnes v. Hampton , 149 Va. 740 , 744-45, 141 S.E. 836 (1928) (same); Blair , 121 Va. at 308 , 93 S.E. 632 (same).

1998In other words, the doctrine of respondeat superior will only apply when the relation of employer and employee is shown to exist between defendants, Scott & Stringfellow and Walker, “at the time and in respect to the very transaction out of which the injury arose" Id. (emphasis added).

1995Similarly, in Sayles v. Piccadilly Cafeteria, 242 Va. 328 , 410 S.E.2d 632 (1991), the court noted: The test for determining whether an accidental injury “[arose] out of and in the course of the employment,” within the meaning of [the Workers’ Compensation Act], is not the same as the test for determining whether a servant acted within the scope of his employment under the doctrine of respondeat superior. 242 Va. at 331 .

1966We said: “ ‘The doctrine of respondeat superior applies only when the relation of master and servant is shown to exist between the wrongdoer and the person sought to be charged for the result of some neglect or wrong at the time and in respect to the very transaction out of which the injury arose.’ Nixon v. Rowland, 192 Va. 47 , 63 S.E. (2d) 757 .” 195 Va. at p. 385 .

1966We said: “ ‘The doctrine of respondeat superior applies only when the relation of master and servant is shown to exist between the wrongdoer and the person sought to be charged for the result of some neglect or wrong at the time and in respect to the very transaction out of which the injury arose.’ Nixon v. Rowland, 192 Va. 47 , 63 S.E. (2d) 757 .” 195 Va. at p. 385 .

2024Thus, to successfully plead a respondeat superior claim, a plaintiff must assert that the employee’s tort occurred “within the scope of the employment relationship.” Butler v. S. States Coop., Inc., 270 Va. 459, 466 (2005).

2013See Butler v. Southern States Coop., Inc., 270 Va. 459, 466 , 620 S.E.2d 768, 773 (2005); Sayles v. Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc., 242 Va. 328, 332 , 410 S.E.2d 632, 634 (1991).

2002McDonald v. Hampton Training Sch. for Nurses, 254 Va. 79, 81 (1997).

2002McDonald v. Hampton Training School for Nurses, 254 Va. 79, 81 (1997).

2018Va., Inc. v. Messer , 263 Va. 435 , 440-41, 559 S.E.2d 704 (2002) ("The tort of negligent hiring is distinct from tort liability predicated upon the doctrine of respondeat superior; the two theories differ in focus."); Gina Chin , 260 Va. at 543 n.4, 537 S.E.2d 573 (describing direct liability for negligent hiring as "[a]n alternate approach" to vicarious liability); Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.05(1) & illus. 1 & 4 (stating the rule of direct liability for negligent hiring and distinguishing it from vicarious liability); John L.

2000In Gina Chin & Associates, Inc. v. First Union Bank, 260 Va. 533 , 537 S.E.2d 573 (2000), also decided today, we have discussed in detail the necessary elements of a cause of action for liability against an employer for the willful and wrongful acts of its employee premised upon the doctrine of respondeat superior.

2018Aware of these doctrinal vagaries, we hold to the belief first expressed over a century ago that "the only safe course to pursue is to revert to first principles, and adhere to ancient landmarks" rather than yielding to some "new principle sought to be engrafted upon the law" for the alleged purpose of addressing "supposed exigencies of new conditions." Blair v.Broadwater , 121 Va. 301 , 308, 93 S.E. 632 (1917) (declining to customize the doctrine of respondeat superior to the "advent of automobiles"); see also Kidd , 128 Va. at 443 , 105 S.E. 124 (same).

2018Aware of these doctrinal vagaries, we hold to the belief first expressed over a century ago that "the only safe course to pursue is to revert to first principles, and adhere to ancient landmarks" rather than yielding to some "new principle sought to be engrafted upon the law" for the alleged purpose of addressing "supposed exigencies of new conditions." Blair v.Broadwater , 121 Va. 301 , 308, 93 S.E. 632 (1917) (declining to customize the doctrine of respondeat superior to the "advent of automobiles"); see also Kidd , 128 Va. at 443 , 105 S.E. 124 (same).

2018Aware of these doctrinal vagaries, we hold to the belief first expressed over a century ago that "the only safe course to pursue is to revert to first principles, and adhere to ancient landmarks" rather than yielding to some "new principle sought to be engrafted upon the law" for the alleged purpose of addressing "supposed exigencies of new conditions." Blair v.Broadwater , 121 Va. 301 , 308, 93 S.E. 632 (1917) (declining to customize the doctrine of respondeat superior to the "advent of automobiles"); see also Kidd , 128 Va. at 443 , 105 S.E. 124 (same).

2018Aware of these doctrinal vagaries, we hold to the belief first expressed over a century ago that "the only safe course to pursue is to revert to first principles, and adhere to ancient landmarks" rather than yielding to some "new principle sought to be engrafted upon the law" for the alleged purpose of addressing "supposed exigencies of new conditions." Blair v.Broadwater , 121 Va. 301 , 308, 93 S.E. 632 (1917) (declining to customize the doctrine of respondeat superior to the "advent of automobiles"); see also Kidd , 128 Va. at 443 , 105 S.E. 124 (same).

2018Restating the doctrine in such low-resolution terms, however, has led to "difficulties" in its application, Giant of Md., Inc. v. Enger , 257 Va. 513 , 516, 515 S.E.2d 111 (1999), and has proven to be conceptually "vexatious," Gina Chin & Assocs. v. First Union Bank , 260 Va. 533 , 541, 537 S.E.2d 573 (2000), and "perplexing," Kidd v. De Witt , 128 Va. 438 , 443, 105 S.E. 124 (1920).

2002Virginia case law makes it clear that “pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer is liable for the tortious acts of its employee if that employee was performing the employer’s business and acting within the scope of the employment when the tortious acts were committed.” Giant v. Enger, 257 Va. 513 (1999). 1 It is clear that respondeat superior can make an employer liable for intentional torts, as well as negligent ones.

2002J. . . v. Victory Tabernacle Baptist Church, 236 Va. *441 206, 211, 372 S.E.2d 391, 394 (1988).

1998Negligent Hiring The Supreme Court in J. v. Victory Tabernacle Baptist Church, 236 Va. 206 (1988), explained its view of the tort: negligent hiring is a doctrine of primary liability; the employer is principally liable for negligently placing an unfit person in an employment situation involving an unreasonable risk of harm to others.

2025During argument on the motion to strike, however, Fitch never offered this “ground for . . . objection.” Lee v. Lee, 12 Va. App. 512, 515 (1991).

2019Although “dicta are entitled to respect, especially if supported by reason,” Virginia Ry. & Power Co. v. Dressler, 132 Va. 342, 350 (1922), we nevertheless “have always to bear in mind the oft-quoted statement of Chief Justice Marshall in Cohens v. Virginia”: It is a maxim, not to be disregarded, that general expressions, in every opinion, are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used.

2019See Duggin v. Adams, 234 Va. 221, 229 (1987) (“Because the sole question in this appeal is whether the motion for judgment alleges a prima facie case . . . , we express no opinion respecting [defendant’s] affirmative defense.”); Durham & Smith, supra note 10, § 21:13 (describing First Amendment arguments “as a defense” to claims against religious organizations for sexual abuse); Sinclair, supra note 6, § 2-4[D][1], at 2-34 to -37 (describing charitable immunity as a defense that a defendant entity must prove); Sinclair & Middleditch, supra, § 2.32, at 202 (6th ed. 2014) (same).

2018Va., Inc. v. Messer , 263 Va. 435 , 440-41, 559 S.E.2d 704 (2002) ("The tort of negligent hiring is distinct from tort liability predicated upon the doctrine of respondeat superior; the two theories differ in focus."); Gina Chin , 260 Va. at 543 n.4, 537 S.E.2d 573 (describing direct liability for negligent hiring as "[a]n alternate approach" to vicarious liability); Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.05(1) & illus. 1 & 4 (stating the rule of direct liability for negligent hiring and distinguishing it from vicarious liability); John L.

2018Va., Inc. v. Messer , 263 Va. 435 , 440-41, 559 S.E.2d 704 (2002) ("The tort of negligent hiring is distinct from tort liability predicated upon the doctrine of respondeat superior; the two theories differ in focus."); Gina Chin , 260 Va. at 543 n.4, 537 S.E.2d 573 (describing direct liability for negligent hiring as "[a]n alternate approach" to vicarious liability); Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.05(1) & illus. 1 & 4 (stating the rule of direct liability for negligent hiring and distinguishing it from vicarious liability); John L.