Key Takeaways

  • Vicarious liability in criminal law holds one party legally responsible for the criminal acts of another, most often in employer–employee relationships.
  • It is a form of liability without fault, meaning an employer can be held accountable even if they explicitly prohibited the unlawful act.
  • Theories supporting vicarious liability include agency, control, and benefit, which explain why responsibility shifts from the individual wrongdoer to another party.
  • Common applications appear in public welfare offenses, such as selling alcohol to minors, environmental violations, and corporate misconduct.
  • Courts often limit punishment under vicarious liability to fines rather than imprisonment, though approaches vary by jurisdiction.
  • Several states restrict or reject employer incarceration under vicarious liability; Minnesota notably abolished the doctrine for absent employers in 1986.

Vicarious Liability

In cases of vicarious liability, one person is held liable for the criminal actions of another. Because vicarious liability crimes are a species of liability without fault, this transfer of criminal liability occurs regardless of whether either of the defendants were aware they were committing a crime.

Vicarious liability cases usually involve an employer incurring criminal liability for her employee's actions. If the defendant ordered her employee to commit the offense then she is of course liable in the conventional fashion. However, in cases of liability without fault, the employer may incur criminal liability even if she explicitly ordered her employee not to commit the act of, for example, selling alcohol to minors. In some jurisdictions, the employee's act of disobeying this order, whether voluntary or involuntary, will transfer criminal liability to the employer, incurring fines and possibly even jail time.

Courts often punish defendants of vicarious liability crimes somewhat more lightly than defendants of strict liability cases. In fact, several states have ruled that employers should not be punished with incarceration for the actions of their employees, and in 1986 Minnesota completely rejected vicarious liability for employers who were absent at the time of the crime.

Theories Supporting Vicarious Liability

Courts and scholars often justify vicarious liability in criminal law under three main theories:

  • Agency Theory: When employees act within the scope of their employment, they are seen as representatives of their employer. If they commit unlawful acts, the employer may also be liable because the act was carried out through the employer’s business relationship.
  • Control Theory: Employers are held responsible because they are in the best position to supervise, train, and prevent misconduct. This rationale emphasizes prevention by placing responsibility on those with authority.
  • Benefit Theory: If an employer benefits, even indirectly, from an employee’s illegal act, liability may be imposed. This discourages businesses from turning a blind eye to unlawful practices that could increase profit.

Common Situations Where It Applies

Vicarious liability is particularly common in public welfare offenses, where protecting public health, safety, and welfare is a priority. Examples include:

  • Alcohol and Tobacco Sales: Employers can be liable if clerks sell restricted products to minors, even against explicit orders.
  • Food and Drug Violations: Corporate officers may be prosecuted for distributing unsafe or mislabeled products.
  • Environmental Offenses: Companies may face criminal liability for pollution caused by employees’ negligent or intentional acts.
  • Workplace Safety: Employers can be charged for safety violations committed by supervisors or workers under their direction.

Limitations and Criticisms

While vicarious liability in criminal law promotes accountability, it also raises fairness concerns. Critics argue it conflicts with the principle of personal culpability, since an individual may face punishment without intent or direct involvement. To balance these concerns:

  • Many courts restrict penalties to monetary fines, avoiding jail time for uninvolved employers.
  • Some states, like Minnesota, have abolished vicarious liability for certain employer–employee crimes when the employer was not present or complicit.
  • Legal commentators also caution against overextending vicarious liability, noting it may discourage entrepreneurship or unfairly burden small business owners.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What is vicarious liability in criminal law?

It is a legal principle where one person, usually an employer, is held criminally responsible for the unlawful acts of another, such as an employee, even without personal fault.

2. How is vicarious liability different from strict liability?

Strict liability applies directly to the person committing the act, regardless of intent. Vicarious liability transfers responsibility to another party, like an employer, based on their relationship to the offender.

3. Can employers go to jail for employees’ crimes?

In most jurisdictions, punishment under vicarious liability is limited to fines. Some states explicitly bar incarceration for employers unless they directed or participated in the crime.

4. What kinds of crimes often involve vicarious liability?

Public welfare offenses such as illegal sales of alcohol or tobacco, environmental violations, workplace safety breaches, and food or drug mislabeling commonly involve vicarious liability.

5. Has any state rejected vicarious liability?

Yes. Minnesota abolished employer vicarious liability in 1986 when the employer was absent at the time of the crime, highlighting ongoing debates about fairness.

If you need help with any legal matters, you can post your legal need on UpCounsel's marketplace. UpCounsel only accepts the top 5 percent of lawyers to its site. Lawyers on UpCounsel come from law schools such as Harvard Law and Yale Law and average 14 years of legal experience, including work with or on behalf of companies like Google, Menlo Ventures, and Airbnb.