Respondeat Superior
The employer-liability doctrine that works everywhere except § 1983 — where cities aren't automatically liable for their officers.
What It Is
Respondeat superior (“let the master answer”) is a tort doctrine that holds employers liable for the wrongful acts of employees committed within the scope of employment. If a delivery driver runs a red light and hits you, the employer is liable.
Why It Doesn’t Apply to § 1983
In Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), the Supreme Court held that municipalities can be sued under § 1983 — but not on a respondeat superior theory. A city is not liable simply because it employs an officer who violated your rights.
Instead, you must show the violation resulted from a municipal policy, custom, or decision by a final policymaker.
Why This Matters
In any other area of law, if a police officer assaults you on the job, the city is automatically liable. In § 1983? You have to prove the city had a policy or custom that caused the violation.
This creates a massive gap. An officer who acts on their own — even repeatedly, even egregiously — doesn’t generate municipal liability unless you can connect the behavior to a policy, custom, or training failure.
The practical effect: cities shield themselves by saying “that was a rogue officer, not our policy.” Even when the pattern of “rogue” officers suggests a systemic problem.
Key Cases
- Monell v. Dep’t of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) — No respondeat superior in § 1983
- Board of County Commissioners v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397 (1997) — Single hiring decision can create Monell liability only if the need to act was “plainly obvious”