For an employer to be liable for the torts of an employee, the employer must be negligent in hiring, training, or supervising the employee.

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

The statement asks whether an employer’s liability for an employee’s tort requires the employer to be negligent in hiring, training, or supervising the employee.
Option 1: True. This would claim that employer liability only exists if the employer was negligent in hiring, training, or supervising. In many cases, an employer can be held liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior even if there was no fault in hiring, training, or supervision. The key idea is that employers may be vicariously liable for the acts of employees acting within the scope of employment, regardless of negligent hiring decisions. Therefore, marking this as always true would be an inaccurate generalization.
Option 2: False. This option correctly separates two potential bases of liability: (a) vicarious liability for acts within the scope of employment, where no negligence in hiring is required, and (b) separate negligence theories such as negligent hiring, negligent entrustment, or negligent supervision, where the employer’s fault in hiring/training/supervising can create liability. When an employee commits a tort within the scope of employment, the employer can be liable even if there was no negligent hiring in the first place. Conversely, if there was negligent hiring, supervision, or entrustment, those theories provide independent avenues for liability beyond the generic respondeat superior liability. This makes the statement false because the employer’s liability does not hinge solely on negligent hiring, training, or supervision; other theories and circumstances can trigger liability.
In sum, the claim that liability requires negligent hiring/training/supervision is too narrow, as there are at least two distinct pathways: vicarious liability regardless of hiring decisions, and separate negligent conduct by the employer in how they hire, train, supervise, or entrust. Therefore, option 2 (False) accurately describes the legal landscape here.

BUSFIN 3500 AU2025 (2111) Final Exam Au_1_25- Requires Respondus LockDown Browser

For an employer to be liable for the torts of an employee, the employer must be negligent in hiring, training, or supervising the employee.

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

Question at position 7 Who may be legally liable for an act of sexual harassment against an intern by an employee of a company? Consider the following factors 1. The employer of the harasser2. The harasser (the employee who harassed the intern) 1 & 21 only2 only

Under the legal theory of respondeat superior, which party is liable for damages to a patient resulting from breach of confidence?

Question at position 29 As long as a buyer is acting in accordance with their employer’s direction, they can never have personal liability for their actions.TrueFalse

Question at position 5 As long as a buyer is acting in accordance with their employer’s direction, they can never have personal liability for their actions.TrueFalse

More Practical Tools for International Students

Exam Browser Assistant

Stylized Writing Assistant

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation Assistant

In-Class Translation Assistant

Class Notes Assistant

Quiz Search Assistant

Past Exam Questions by School

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler