Relational liability in its simplest terms means responsibility for the actions of another. Liability for the actions of another is a legal concept that assigns liability for an injury to a person who did not actually cause the injury but who has a particular legal relationship to the person who did act negligently. Relationships that can lead to imputed responsibility include parent and child, employer and employee, and owner and animals. In all instances, the legal responsibility is codified in Louisiana’s Civil Code.
Perhaps the most frequent occasion for relational liability is in the context of employer and employee relationships. In this regard, liability rests in a deeply rooted sentiment that a business enterprise cannot justly disclaim responsibility for accidents which may fairly be said to be characteristic of its activities. For example, a pizza business is typically responsible should one of their delivery drivers get into an accident while in the course of delivering a pizza. In other words, an employer is typically helped responsible for the actions of an employee which occurs while the employee is in the course and scope of employment. “Course” of employment refers to time and place, whereas “scope” of employment refers to employment-related activity.
Another frequent occasion for the imposition of relational liability is in the context of parents and their minor children. Unless a child has reached the age of majority or has been emancipated by marriage or judgment of emancipation, the child’s parents are legally responsible for the tortious conduct of the minor child. For example, a parent is typically responsible should a minor child cause an auto accident or any other negligent conduct. A parent is responsible for not only the negligent actions of a minor child but also for the intentional actions of a minor child, such as vandalism and physical altercations.
Last among the relationships noted is that of owner and animals. The owner of a dog, for instance, is responsible for any and which did not result from the injured person’s provocation of the dog. Liability for other types of animals is similar but requires additional proof of knowledge that the animal’s behavior would cause harm and that such could have been prevented by the exercise of reasonable care.
