Miller v. Metropolitan Life Ins.

By the Court:

Defendant contends, in substance, that Evans was an independent contractor, over whose acts it neither reserved nor exercised any control; that, consequently, the doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply.

Plaintiff contends that Evans was an agent, over whose acts defendant had a right of control; that the tortious act complained of was committed by Evans while engaged in the course of his employment; and that, therefore, the doctrine of respondeat superior does apply.

The fundamental rule generally recognized is that the doctrine of respondeat superior is applicable to the…