Criminal Liability And Respondeat Superior In Israeli Law

Respondeat superior, a Latin phrase meaning let the master answer, is a legal doctrine that holds an employer or principal vicariously liable for the unlawful or unjust acts of their employee or agent. While it originated as a doctrine of tort law, it has been used in criminal law for the past century, especially in the context of corporate criminal liability. The doctrine has its roots in ancient Rome, where it applied to slaves, and was later expanded to include animals and family members. In modern times, it is primarily applied in the employer-employee relationship, where an employer may be held liable for the actions of an employee when the actions take place within the scope of employment and under the employer's supervision. However, its application in criminal law is controversial, as it raises questions of moral responsibility and culpability.

Respondeat superior in criminal law

Respondeat superior, a Latin phrase meaning "let the master answer", is a common-law doctrine that holds an employer or principal legally liable for the actions of an employee or agent when certain conditions are met. While the doctrine is generally used in tort law, it has also been applied in criminal law, particularly in the context of corporate criminal liability.

History and Application

Respondeat superior originated in 17th-century England and was initially used to define the legal liability of an employer for the actions of an employee. It was later adopted in the United States, becoming a fixture of agency law. The doctrine is based on the concept of vicarious liability, where one party is held liable for the actions of another due to their relationship of authority.

In criminal law, respondeat superior has been used to secure criminal liability for corporations, holding employers and firms responsible for the actions of their employees. This application first emerged in the 19th century and has since become the dominant way of holding corporations criminally liable. Prosecutors rely on respondeat superior to establish corporate criminal liability when employees act within the scope of their employment and with the intent to benefit the firm.

Requirements for Application

For respondeat superior to apply in criminal law, several conditions must be met:

• The individual committing the unlawful act must be an employee or agent of the employer or principal.
• The unlawful act must occur within the scope of employment or agency. This includes considerations such as time, location, and whether the act is incidental to or of the same general nature as the employee's responsibilities.
• The employee's actions must be in furtherance of the employer's interests or provide some benefit to the employer.

Criticisms and Challenges

Despite its popularity, the use of respondeat superior in criminal law, especially for corporate liability, has faced several criticisms and challenges:

• Overinclusiveness: Some argue that respondeat superior holds firms responsible for the conduct of rogue employees who act outside the scope of their employment or without the intent to benefit the firm.
• Underinclusiveness: Conversely, it may be difficult to implicate the firm when it is unclear which specific employee committed the criminal act or satisfied the elements of the crime.
• Harsh Punishment: There are concerns that applying respondeat superior may result in overly harsh punishment for corporations, as it does not consider the culpability or intent of the firm itself.
• Inappropriate Aims: Critics argue that respondeat superior focuses on satisfying aims that may not align with the purposes of criminal law, such as deterrence or punishment without considering corporate mens rea.
• Answerability: The doctrine assumes that the employer or principal can answer for the actions of their employees, but in reality, firms may not have the authority to provide explanations or justifications for the actions of individual employees.

Alternative Approaches

Due to these challenges, alternative approaches to corporate criminal liability have been proposed, such as:

• Accomplice Liability: Treating firms as accomplices to the criminal act, guilty of aiding and abetting.
• Negligence: Holding firms responsible for criminal negligence by failing to meet a reasonable standard of due diligence to prevent or report illegal conduct by their employees.

Vicarious liability

Respondeat superior, meaning "let the master answer" in Latin, is a doctrine that establishes vicarious liability, or the responsibility of a superior for the acts of their subordinate. This means that an employer or principal can be held accountable for the unlawful or unjust acts of their employee or agent. The doctrine is based on the concept that the principal controls the agent's behaviour and must therefore assume some responsibility for their actions.

In the context of employment law, vicarious liability means that employers are liable for certain wrongs, either negligent or intentional, committed by their employees. This typically applies when the employee's actions are within the scope of their employment or agency. However, there are exceptions where the wrongdoer is an independent contractor rather than an employee.

In Israel, the doctrine of vicarious liability has been recognised in cases such as Choi v. Sutton Group Central Realty Inc., where a real estate company was held vicariously liable for fraudulent transactions committed by its agent. Similarly, in Bazley v. Curry, a child-care institution was found vicariously liable for sexual assaults committed by one of its employees. These cases illustrate the application of vicarious liability in situations where employees commit wrongful acts, either authorised or unauthorised, that cause harm to others.

Employer-employee relationship

The employer-employee relationship is central to the application of respondeat superior. This Latin phrase, which translates to "let the master answer", establishes the employer's legal liability for the actions of their employees. This liability arises when the employee's actions take place within the scope of employment and under the employer's supervision.

The doctrine of respondeat superior holds that an employer can be vicariously liable for the unlawful or unjust acts of their employees, provided these acts are committed while the employee is working within the scope of their employment. This means that the employer can be held responsible even if they did not commit a negligent act themselves. However, it is important to note that the employee also remains personally liable for their torts.

To establish employer liability, the plaintiff must prove three things:

• The injury occurred while the employee was working for the employer.
• The employee was acting within the scope of their employment.
• The employee was performing an act in furtherance of the employer's interest.

Courts will consider factors such as the employer's control over the employee, including their ability to dictate when, where, and how the employee works. This is because respondeat superior only applies to employment relationships, not to relationships between a company and an independent contractor. However, employers cannot escape liability by simply labelling an employee as an independent contractor. If the employer has sufficient control over the individual, they may still be held liable for their actions.

The standard for invoking respondeat superior varies across jurisdictions, with most adopting the benefits test and the characteristics test. The benefits test holds employers liable if the employee's actions are expressly or implicitly permitted by the employer and confer a benefit, even if the actions result in harm during social or recreational pursuits. The characteristics test holds employers liable if the employee's actions align with the common characteristics of their job description.

In summary, the employer-employee relationship is crucial to the application of respondeat superior, with employers potentially liable for their employees' actions within the scope of employment. However, the specific application of this doctrine can vary depending on the jurisdiction.

Independent contractors

In Israel, there is a clear distinction between independent contractors and employees. Israeli courts use a series of "tests" to determine the nature of the working relationship.

High Level of Worker Control

Direction from the Employer

Employees typically receive more direction and supervision from their employer, including working for a set period of time each week and often from a specific location.

Tools and Equipment

Integration

Contractors often work remotely and are less integrated into the day-to-day operations of the company. Employees, on the other hand, are more integrated, participating in daily company business and office norms.

Entitlement to Benefits

Israeli independent contractors are entitled to the same health and pension benefits guaranteed by the government to all citizens. However, they are not eligible for additional statutory entitlements like vacation days, maternity leave, and severance pay, which are afforded to employees.

Time-Bound Engagement

Exclusivity of Services

Subcontracting

Contractors have the freedom to assign tasks to another individual or business (subcontracting), while employees are expected to perform their work themselves unless they receive permission to delegate.

Invoicing and Payment

Tax Obligations

Work Permits and Registration

Foreign nationals wishing to work as independent contractors in Israel need a work permit. They must also register as a self-employed individual ("Atzmai") with three Israeli offices: income tax, value-added tax (VAT), and the National Insurance Institute (NII). Obtaining an Israeli ID is necessary for registration, which may require the assistance of a resident business representative.

Types of Self-Employed Workers

There are two main types of self-employed workers in Israel: Osek Patur and Osek Morshe. Osek Patur is the standard structure for small businesses starting out, with an annual income limit of 100,000 shekels. Osek Morshe is for those earning above this threshold, requiring VAT registration but allowing for more business growth and development.

Compliance and Reporting

Criminal liability for corporations

Respondeat superior, a Latin phrase meaning "let the master answer", is a common-law doctrine that holds an employer or principal legally liable for the actions of an employee or agent when the actions take place within the scope of employment and under the supervision of the employer. This doctrine is based on the concept of vicarious liability.

In Israel, the most common alternative for incorporating an entity is forming a limited liability company. The formation of a corporation enables individuals, corporations, or groups to operate through a separate legal entity with its own rights, obligations, and actions. While there are no statutory restrictions on foreign corporations and citizens forming a company in Israel, specific procedures must be followed, and the company will be subject to applicable laws and regulations.

Now, addressing the topic of criminal liability for corporations, it is important to note that this area of law can be complex and vary across different jurisdictions. In the context of international criminal law, corporations may face criminal liability for their involvement in international crimes, such as war crimes or crimes against humanity. For example, corporations that provide military equipment or contribute to unlawful occupations may be complicit in war crimes. Additionally, corporations can be held accountable for the actions of their employees or agents under the respondeat superior doctrine in certain circumstances.

In the case of Israel, there have been instances where corporations have faced scrutiny for their involvement in the country's military actions. For instance, campaign groups have warned arms manufacturers based in the UK about their potential criminal liability for failing to prevent war crimes by selling military equipment to Israel. This highlights the potential criminal liability that corporations can face when their business activities are associated with human rights violations or other international crimes.

To avoid criminal liability, corporations should conduct thorough due diligence and refrain from engaging in business activities that contribute to adverse human rights impacts. By adhering to international laws, guidelines, and ethical standards, corporations can mitigate the risk of being held accountable for complicity in international crimes.

Frequently asked questions