Cited by

At common law, it was “well settled that an employer [was] entitled to recover from the employee damages which the employer was compelled to pay because of the employee’s negligence.” ().

Under that doctrine, “an employer is vicariously liable for the torts of an employee committed within the course and scope of employment.” .

4 the course and scope of employment.”

Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, “an employer is vicariously liable for the torts of an employee co mmitted within the course a nd scope of employment.” Schneider v. Buckman

12 rev’d on other grounds

The supreme court’s prior decisions regarding subdivision 2 are Hosley I

to support this argument.

In reaching its decision, a case decided before the 2003 amendment to the statute.

Note that an employee-employer relationship does not create de facto privity, -02 (Minn.1988), where, under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employee and employer were found to be jointly and severally liable, making separate actions against them permissible.

Under that theory, “an employer is vicariously liable for the torts of an employee committed within the course and scope of employment.”

Under the ‘well-established principle’ of respondeat superior, ‘an employer is vicariously liable for the torts of an employee committed within the course and scope of employment.’ Fahrendorff v. North Homes, Inc., ().

Fahrendorff v. N. Homes, Inc.

Under the “well-established principle” of respondeat superior, “an employer is vicariously liable for the torts of an employee committed within the course and scope of employment.”

(no reallocation where doctor and hospital, two of three joint tortfeasors, were not parties to lawsuit because statute of limitations had run).