Sports And Drugs

8 Pages 1958 Words

ommand doctrine”. Judiciary officials at the time had two main reasons for such a dramatic change in “respondeat superior”; (1) they wanted to reduce the number of incidents in which slave owners could be held liable for torts and (2) to place the blame and moral responsibility on the individual who physically committed the act.
In the 1700’s the courts again moved away from their viewpoint of non-liability for employee torts. They recognized the existence of “implied commands” from employers to employees. This broadened the scope of cases in which employees could be held liable for the torts of their employers. But the courts also recognized a distinction between intentional torts and negligence. In turn, they redefined the “implied commands” doctrine and refused to hold employers vicariously liable fro the intentional torts of their employees, stating that such conduct could never be commanded implicitly.
A new test was developed in modern times that is broader and contains many factors than the old “implied commands” test. Labeled the “scope of employment” test, it states that an employer can be held vicariously responsible for all employee acts—whether they are negligent or intentional—that arise in the scope of employment. This was the standard of review which arouse out of “respondeat superior” that the plaintiffs in Tamjanovich v. CA Sports Inc and Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals used to help win their cases.
Respondeat Superior was used very uniquely in the two cases to make the employment sport companies responsible for the actions of their employee players. First in...