The rise and decline of the respondeat superior doctrine in American public service law

The respondeat superior doctrine holds a superior to respond for his delinquent servant's tort. The doctrine, while seeking to promote responsible government and responsible public servants by way of intensifying hierarchical control in the public service, is at odds with the need for administrative responsibility. The doctrine stigmatizes the responsiveness and responsibility of public servants because it holds public officials responsible for acts that they could neither predict nor prevent.; The doctrine was limited by the court's decision in Monell v. Department of Social Services (1977), which held that a superior is responsible only for acts carried out in such a manner as to "cause or subject to cause" a deprivation of constitutional right. The decision appears to help establish an overall incentive system to ensure responsible interactive bureaucratic behaviors in two ways. Firstly, as stated in Harley v. Schuylkill (1979), public servants have a duty and a right to refuse to violate another's constitutional rights, and this is a right secured by the Constitution and laws. Secondly, the courts' decisions demand that municipalities be responsible under section 1983 for "authorized," "deliberate acts," and "official custom." The confluence of official and governmental responsibility directs that governmental entities undertake affirmative measures to monitor and remedy their official policies, customs and practices in order to ensure that they have not selectively enforced their administrative powers and violated the constitutional rights of the citizenry.; The new respondeat superior plus doctrine and the development of personalizing official responsibility is indicative of an extensive transformation in thought and practice in public administration and law that endures to the present day. Foremost is the evolution of a new control relationship in the public service state, which further reinforces public servants' right to disobey. Hierarchical control is no longer seen as the most effective mechanism to deal with institutional excess and abuse. The new control relationship opens up the process of governing, introducing new democratic rights in government workplaces to ensure that administrative power is legitimately and properly exercised.