Law. Human. Environment

Employer liability for employee-caused harm: A study of vicarious responsibility

Anjeza Licenji, Alfiora Fortuzi
Download article
Abstract

The study aimed to determine the effectiveness of legal mechanisms governing the subsidiary liability of employers for damages caused by employees in the course of their employment duties. The paper examined the theoretical foundations of tort law, judicial practice, and comparative approaches across different legal systems. The methodological framework was based on a comprehensive approach that combined doctrinal analysis, a comparative examination of common law and European law provisions, and case law analysis, including a review of specific cases. This approach made it possible to identify the peculiarities of interpretation and application of the relevant norms in various jurisdictions. The findings of the research demonstrated that subsidiary liability continues to play a key role within the system of tort law, as it ensures effective compensation for victims even in cases where the employee lacks sufficient financial resources. At the same time, it was established that legal systems vary in their definition of the employer’s scope of liability: while continental European jurisdictions tend to interpret it more broadly, common law countries are more inclined to apply restrictive criteria. The analysis of judicial practice revealed that courts increasingly favour the principles of fairness and proportionality, striving to protect victims while preventing excessive financial burdens on employers. The research also identified ambiguity in the qualification of employees’ intentional torts, which necessitates clarification of statutory criteria regarding the boundaries of “the course of employment”. The obtained results have practical implications: for legal practitioners, they assist in the proper legal qualification of duties and scope of liability, and for employers, they serve as guidance for implementing preventive strategies, including risk management, compliance programmes, and insurance mechanism

Keywords

subsidiary liability; employer’s liability; tort law; employee misconduct; comparative law; workplace harm

Suggested citation
Licenji, A., & Fortuzi, A. (2025). Employer liability for employee-caused harm: A study of vicarious responsibility. Law. Human. Environment, 16(4), 177-196. https://doi.org/10.31548/law/4.2025.177
References
  1. Abraham, K.S., & White, G.E. (2022). Tort law and the construction of change: Studies in the inevitability of history. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
  2. Adebayo, B.O. (2021). The nexus between vicarious liability of employers and the acts committed “in the cause of employment” by the employees: A discourse. Journal of Commercial and Property Law, 8(4), 71-86.
  3. Aguilera Gordillo, R. (2024). Weaknesses in Spanish jurisprudence on the criminal liability of legal entities: Non-imputability of certain legal entities and lack of methodology when applying the transfer of criminal liability between corporations. Eucrim – The European Criminal Law Associations’ Forum, 3, 293-299. doi: 10.30709/eucrim-2023-027.
  4. Al-Hashmi, A.S.A., & Al-Nuaimi, A.B.A.O. (2023). Administrative liability arising from damage caused by a public road facility: A comparative study. Journal of Social and Environmental Management, 17(7), article number e03986.
  5. Baginska, E. (2025). Tort law reforms in Central and Eastern European countries. European Review of Private Law, 33(1-2), 59-90. doi: 10.54648/erpl2025021.
  6. Beuermann, C. (2022). Discerning the form at the second stage of vicarious liability. Cambridge Law Journal, 81(3), 495-523. doi: 10.1017/S0008197322000526.
  7. Burnazi Mitllari, L. (2023). Corporate fraud and liability provisions in Albania. In 9th international scientific conference ERAZ – Knowledge Based Sustainable Development (pp. 525-531). Belgrade: Association of Economists and Managers of the Balkans. doi: 10.31410/eraz.2023.525.
  8. Campbell, M., & Lindsay, B. (2024). Refining vicarious liability. Edinburgh Law Review, 28(2), 174-206. doi: 10.3366/elr.2024.0892.
  9. Cappelletti, M. (2024). A pluralist view of vicarious liability in tort. Law Quarterly Review, 140, 61-84. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4358773.
  10. Cela, E., Çela, R., & Kalemaj, E. (2023). Liability for causing damage under European private international law: Albanian rapprochement framework during the integration process towards the EU. Interdisciplinary Journal of Research and Development, 10(1S1), article number 89. doi: 10.56345/ijrdv10n1s113.
  11. Civil Code of France. (2023, November). Retrieved from https://french-business-law.com/french-legislation/legitext000006070721-french-civil-code/.
  12. Civil Code of Italy. (2016, November). Retrieved from http://italiantortlaw.altervista.org/civilcode.html.
  13. Civil Code of the Federal Republic of Germany. (2021, August). Retrieved from https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_bgb/englisch_bgb.html.
  14. Civil Code of the Republic of Albania. (2001, September). Retrieved from https://www.icnl.org/wp-content/uploads/Albania_civcode.pdf.
  15. Cooke, J. (2024). The law of tort. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
  16. Council of Europe. (2025). Guidelines for improving access to social protection and explanatory memorandum. Retrieved from https://www.coe.int/t/dg3/socialpolicies/socialrights/guidelinessocprot_en.asp.
  17. Decision of the Federal Court of Justice in Civil Matters in Case “Straßenbahn”. (1957, March). Retrieved from https://law.utexas.edu/transnational/foreign-law-translations/german/case.php?id=788.
  18. European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice. (2024). European judicial systems CEPEJ: Evaluation report. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/cepej-evaluation-report-2024-general-analyses/1680b1e91d.
  19. European Commission. (2022). Commission staff working document: Albania 2022 report. Retrieved from https://surl.li/zvzpuo.
  20. European Commission. (2023). Joint employment report 2023. Retrieved from https://employment-social-affairs.ec.europa.eu/joint-employment-report-2023_en.
  21. European Committee of Social Rights. (2022). 2022 conclusions. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/conclusions-2022-highlights-eng-final/1680aaa1b7.
  22. European Social Charter. (1996, May). Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/168007cf93.
  23. Feng, X. (2024). The extension of vicarious liability in corporate groups. Journal of Corporate Law Studies, 24(1), 169-198. doi: 10.1080/14735970.2024.2376278.
  24. Gaeta, M.C. (2018). Liability rules and self-driving cars: The evolution of tort law in the light of new technologies. Napoli: University of Naples Federico II.
  25. Giliker, P. (2023). Vicarious liability and corporations. In M. Petrin & C. Witting (Eds.), Research handbook on corporate liability (pp. 274-291). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. doi: 10.4337/9781800371286.00024.
  26. Giliker, P. (2024). Vicarious liability in the UK Supreme Court and High Court of Australia. Legal Studies, 44(1), 191-198. doi: 10.1017/lst.2023.38.
  27. Glavaničová, D., & Pascucci, M. (2024). Making sense of vicarious responsibility: Moral philosophy meets legal theory. Erkenntnis, 89, 107-128. doi: 10.1007/s10670-022-00525-x.
  28. Gredka-Ligarska, I. (2025). Employer’s vicarious liability for damage caused by an AI worker: Comparative law perspective. Utrecht Law Review, 21(1), 36-48. doi: 10.36633/ulr.1063.
  29. Judgement of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Albania No. 14. (2025, March). Retrieved from https://www.gjykatakushtetuese.gov.al/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/vend.1425.pdf.
  30. Judgement of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Albania No. 229. (2025, September). Retrieved from https://www.gjykatakushtetuese.gov.al/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/vend.mosk_.22925.pdf.
  31. Judgement of the European Court of Human Rights in Case No. 48939/99 “Öneryildiz v. Turkey”. (2004). Retrieved from https://www.globalhealthrights.org/oneryildiz-v-turkey/.
  32. Judgement of the U.S. Supreme Court in Case “Faragher v. City of Boca Raton”. (1998, March). Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/524/775/.
  33. Judgement of the United Kingdom House of Lords in Case “Lister and Others v. Hesley Hall Limited: UKHL 22”. (2001, May). Retrieved from https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2001/22.html.
  34. Judgement of the United Kingdom Supreme Court in Case “Mohamud v. WM Morrison Supermarkets Plc (Rev 1): UKSC 11”. (2016, March). Retrieved from https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2016/11.html.
  35. Judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in Case “Bazley v. Curry”. (1999, June). Retrieved from https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1709/index.do.
  36. Khamzina, Z., Buribayev, Y., Taitorina, B., & Baisalova, G. (2021). Gender equality in employment: A view from Kazakhstan. Anais Da Academia Brasileira De Ciencias, 93(4), article number e20190042. doi: 10.1590/0001-3765202120190042.
  37. Kodilinye, G., & Corthésy, N. (2022). Vicarious liability. In Commonwealth Caribbean tort law (pp. 361-406). London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781351065108.
  38. Labour Code of the Republic of Albania. (1995, July). Retrieved from https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/10575.
  39. Law of the Republic of Albania No. 32 “On Compulsory Insurance in the Transport Sector”. (2021, March). Retrieved from https://amf.gov.al/pdf/ligje/LawNo32_16032021_CompulsoryInsuranceintheTransportSector.pdf.
  40. Law of the Republic of Albania No. 52 “On the Activity of Insurance and Reinsurance”. (2014, May). Retrieved from https://amf.gov.al/pdf/ligje/191_Law%20No.52%202014%20On%20the%20activity%20of%20insurance%20and%20reinsurance.pdf.
  41. Lukash, M., Chuprun, Y., Lysak, O., Husakovskyi, A., & Hanhanov, K. (2025). AI evolution and its role in transforming the automation of commercial activities. LatIA, 3, article number 344. doi: 10.62486/latia2025344.
  42. Marku, E. (2023). The principle of good faith in the civil law and common law systems: The Albanian legal system, comparative analysis. Interdisciplinary Journal of Research and Development, 10(1 S1), article number 255. doi: 10.56345/ijrdv10n1s138.
  43. Nitsenko, V., Dankevych, A., Dzoba, O., Ustenko, A., & Bashynska, Y. (2024). Ethical and social incentives for the transformation of the business model of enterprise management in conditions of sustainable development. Naukovyi Visnyk Natsionalnoho Hirnychoho Universytetu, 4, 172-179. doi: 10.33271/nvngu/2024-4/172.
  44. Nuni, M. (2016). Employer’s liability for damages caused to third parties by employees. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 7(1S1), 423-428. doi: 10.5901/mjss.2016.v7n1s1p423.
  45. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2025). OHCHR and business and human rights. Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/en/business.
  46. Okpeh, B. (2021). Modern approach to the doctrine of vicarious liability. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3884388.
  47. Ormerod, D., & Laird, K. (2021). Corporate and vicarious liability. In Smith, Hogan, and Ormerod’s criminal law (pp. 259-291). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/he/9780198849704.003.0008.
  48. Perozzi, F.G., Longo, F., Bernardi, F., & Randazzo, R. (2024). In brief: Civil liability for corporate human rights violations in Italy. Retrieved from https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a93c99ac-897e-416a-8126-ab3196f87cd7.
  49. Plenary Assembly of the Court of Cassation of France No. 02-30.858. (2005, March). Retrieved from https://justice.pappers.fr/decision/ce26b869bc6860313602f144dd99f8a3f9a0eb99.
  50. Plenary Assembly of the Court of Cassation of France No. 87-82.654. (1988, May). Retrieved from https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/juri/id/JURITEXT000007020609.
  51. Porkodi, S., Srihari, S., & Vijayakumar, N. (2022). Talent management by predicting employee attrition using enhanced weighted forest optimization algorithm with improved random forest classifier. International Journal of Advanced Technology and Engineering Exploration, 9(90), 563-582. doi: 10.19101/IJATEE.2021.875340.
  52. Porytska, Y.M. (2023). Financial liability of the employer under the legislation of foreign countries. Uzhhorod National University Herald. Series: Law, 77(1), 219-223. doi: 10.24144/2307-3322.2023.77.1.35.
  53. Pupe, E., Veshi, D., Venditti, C., Picaro, R., & Haxhia, K. (2023). Case-law on informed consent in Germany: A model for Albania? Liverpool Law Review, 44, 43-81. doi: 10.1007/s10991-022-09319-1.
  54. Ram Mohan, M.P., & Sai Muralidhar, K. (2023). In pursuit of balance: Vicarious liability doctrine in the United Kingdom and India. Hofstra Labor & Employment Law Journal, 40(2), article number 4.
  55. Road Code of the Republic of Albania. (2015, January). Retrieved from https://policycommons.net/artifacts/4849225/kodi-rrugor-i/5686067/.
  56. Tahiri, B., & Muharremi, M. (2022). Liability for damage arising from the employment relationship – Comparative aspects. The Seybold Report Journal, 17(11), 2002-2017. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7389881.
  57. Terré, F., Simler, P., Lequette, Y., & Chénedé, F. (2019). Civil law: Obligations (Droit civil: Les obligations). Paris: Dalloz.
  58. United Nations. (2011). Guiding principles on business and human rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” framework. Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/documents/publications/guidingprinciplesbusinesshr_en.pdf.
  59. Vazova, T., Vazov, R., & Radev, V. (2025). Active aging among the elderly and its economic and social consequences in Bulgaria. Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Terapan Universitas Jambi, 9(3), 1037-1054. doi: 10.22437/jiituj.v9i3.42957.
  60. von Bar, C. (2009). The common European law of torts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  61. Yin, Y. (2023). The economic efficiency of vicarious liability in employment relationships. Lecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media, 26(1), 116-120. doi: 10.54254/2753-7048/26/20230864.