Employer Responsibility For Employee Misdeed

The question, as you're asking it, is overly simplistic.

There are plenty of things that employees do where employers can have at least some liability attach. For example, if I'm driving a company vehicle and I get into an accident, a part of the fault is on me, but if the brakes were not properly maintained by the company, or the company did not train me properly (maybe the company vehicle is an ice cream truck or a tractor trailer) or even told me to drive recklessly in order to keep my job (Domino's Pizza got into trouble for that when they had their 30 minutes or less guarantee), well, the company's also going to be liable.

There are also companies (financial services ones, usually), where an employee (say, the CEO) gets in trouble for misdeeds. If the plaintiff (or the state, if it's a criminal matter) succeeds in what's called "piercing the corporate veil", then the company is going to have some liability. E. g. if a company does not do enough to prevent insider trading (which is a Federal offense for which treble damages can attach), then the company can be put on the hook.

As for the teacher having sex with the student, it's unlikely that the employer (the school) can be dinged, but if the school knew about the matter and failed to protect a minor student, liability could very well attach.

Under Common Law, the master is responsible for the actions of the servant. Respondeat Superior.

If the agent (teacher) is in the course and scope of his or her employment, the employer (school district) would likely be found vicariously liable for the agents misdeeds.

State by State case law might shed light on whether or not a teacher would be considered in the course and scope of his or her employment in terms of the illicit relationship, but, personally, I would argue the teacher wasn't.

The point jespah has made speaks to the direct negligence of the school. If the school had reason to suspect a relationship was in the works and did nothing about it, or if the teacher had a record of such misdeeds and the school maintained his or her employment, then the school might be found liable for whatever damages are claimed, but it would be on the basis of its own tortious act or omission and not on the tortious behavior of the teacher.

A simpler example is one wherein you own a carpet cleaning business. While performing carpet cleaning at a customer's home, one of your employees, negligently knocks over a vases and breaks it. In all likelihood you would be held responsible for the employee's negligence if your customer sued you for her damaged vase.

If, however, it can be established that the carpet cleaner was an independent contractor and not your agent (employee) Respondeat Superior should not apply.

What makes someone an agent or an independent contractor is fairly straight forward, but the results of litigation are not always straight forward.

The general public likes to think that an employer is responsible for any act of its employee, but that's not the case.

Ah, thank god for Wikipedia, eh Finn?

K, brings me to a problem I'm having so I'll start a thread.

Would SO appreciate thoughts, advise from you all... Please...

In your case certainly