{"id":1258,"date":"2017-09-27T17:43:30","date_gmt":"2017-09-27T17:43:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-fmcc-criminallaw\/?post_type=chapter&p=1258"},"modified":"2019-07-05T15:29:38","modified_gmt":"2019-07-05T15:29:38","slug":"7-2-vicarious-liability","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-criminallaw\/chapter\/7-2-vicarious-liability\/","title":{"raw":"7.2 Vicarious Liability","rendered":"7.2 Vicarious Liability"},"content":{"raw":"
\r\n

Learning Objectives<\/h3>\r\n
    \r\n \t
  1. Distinguish between accomplice liability and vicarious liability.<\/li>\r\n \t
  2. Distinguish between corporate criminal vicarious liability and individual criminal vicarious liability.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    Vicarious liability<\/a><\/span>, a concept discussed in Chapter 4 \"The Elements of a Crime\"<\/a>, also transfers liability from one defendant to another. However, vicarious liability should not be confused with accomplice liability. Accomplice liability is based on the defendant\u2019s participation in a criminal enterprise and complicity<\/strong> with the criminal actor or principal, but vicarious liability transfers a defendant\u2019s criminal responsibility for the crime to a different defendant because of a special relationship<\/em>. With vicarious liability, the acting defendant also is criminally responsible for his or her conduct. Similar to the civil law concept of respondeat superior discussed in Chapter 1 \"Introduction to Criminal Law\"<\/a>, vicarious liability in criminal law is common between employers and employees. It is also the basis of corporate liability<\/a><\/span>, which is discussed in Section 7.2.1 \"Corporate Liability\"<\/a>.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n

    Corporate Liability<\/h3>\r\n

    At early common law, corporations were not criminally prosecutable as separate entities, which was most likely because in England, corporations were owned and operated by the government. In modern times, American corporations are private enterprises whose actions can seriously injure other individuals and the economy. Thus a corporation can be criminally responsible for conduct apart from its owners, agents, or employees (New York Central R. Co. v. U.S., 2010). In general, this is a vicarious liability<\/strong>, transferring criminal responsibility for an offense from<\/em> an agent<\/strong> or employee<\/strong> of the corporation to<\/em> the corporation itself, based on the employment relationship. Of course, the agent or employee also is responsible for the crime he or she commits.<\/p>\r\n

    A corporation is vicariously liable only if an agent or employee commits a crime during<\/em> the agent or employee\u2019s scope of employment (720 ILCS, 2010). As the Model Penal Code states, \u201c[a] corporation may be convicted of the commission of an offense if\u2026the conduct is performed by an agent of the corporation acting in behalf of the corporation within the scope of his office or employment\u201d (Model Penal Code \u00a7\u00a02.07(1)(a)). The criminal punishment for a corporation is generally payment of a fine.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n

    Example of Corporate Liability<\/h3>\r\n

    Harry, an employee of Burger King Corporation, shreds corporate documents in his office when Burger King is sued civilly for sexual harassment in a multimillion-dollar class action suit. Under modern theories of corporate liability, both Harry and Burger King could be criminally prosecuted for obstruction of justice. Note that Burger King\u2019s liability is vicarious<\/strong> and depends on its relationship with Harry as an employer and the fact that Harry is acting within the scope of employment. Vicarious liability is distinguishable from accomplice liability<\/strong>, where the accomplice must be complicit with the criminal actor. The owners of Burger King, who are the corporate shareholders, did not actively participate in Harry\u2019s conduct, although they will share in the punishment if the corporation is fined.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n\r\n[caption id=\"\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"1250\"]\"Vicarious Figure 7.2<\/strong> Vicarious and Corporate Liability[\/caption]\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n
    \r\n

    Individual Criminal Vicarious Liability<\/h3>\r\n

    Generally speaking, criminal law disfavors criminal vicarious liability<\/strong>, the exception being corporate liability discussed in Section 7.2.1 \"Corporate Liability\"<\/a>. Criminal vicarious liability violates the basic precept that individuals should be criminally accountable for their own conduct, not the conduct of others (State v. Akers, 2010). Although accomplice liability appears to hold an accomplice responsible for principals\u2019 conduct, in reality the accomplice is committing a criminal act supported by criminal intent and is punished accordingly. In addition, other statutes that appear to impose criminal liability vicariously are actually holding individuals responsible for their own<\/em> criminal conduct. Some examples are statutes holding parents<\/strong> criminally responsible when their children<\/strong> commit crimes that involve weapons belonging to the parents, and offenses criminalizing contributing to the delinquency of a minor. In both of these examples, the parents are held accountable for their<\/em> conduct, such as allowing children to access their guns or be truant from school. The law is evolving in this area because the incidence of juveniles committing crimes is becoming increasingly prevalent.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n

    Key Takeaways<\/h3>\r\n