Opinion ID: 150167
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Master-Servant Relationship and the Right of Control Test

Text: In Pennsylvania, only a master-servant relationship gives rise to vicarious liability for negligence. Smalich v. Westfall, 440 Pa. 409, 269 A.2d 476, 481 (1970). As a general rule, a master may be held liable for the acts of the servant when those acts are committed during the course of his employment and within the scope of his authority. Valles v. Albert Einstein Med. Ctr., 569 Pa. 542, 805 A.2d 1232, 1237 (2002). The rationale for this rule is simple: [B]ecause a master has the right to exercise control over the physical activities of the servant within the time of service, he is vicariously liable for the servant's negligent acts committed within the scope of his employment. Smalich, 269 A.2d at 481 (emphasis in original). In a master-servant relationship, a master not only controls the results of the work but also may direct the manner in which such work shall be done. Id.; see also Universal Am-Can, Ltd. v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd., 563 Pa. 480, 762 A.2d 328, 333 (2000) ([C]ontrol over the work to be completed and the manner in which it is to be performed are the primary factors in determining employee status.). [6] [A] servant, in rendering the agreed services, remains entirely under the control and direction of the master. Smalich, 269 A.2d at 481. When determining whether a master-servant relationship exists, [a]ctual control of the manner of work is not essential; rather, it is the right to control which is determinative. Drexel v. Union Prescription Ctrs., Inc., 582 F.2d 781, 785 (3d Cir.1978). Under this right of control test, [t]he control of the principal does not... include control at every moment; its exercise may be very attenuated and, as where the principal is physically absent, may be ineffective. Smalich, 269 A.2d at 481 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Although this passage might suggest a lenient right of control test, the right to exercise day-to-day control remains an important factor in the master-servant inquiry. See, e.g., Smith v. Exxon Corp., 436 Pa.Super. 221, 647 A.2d 577, 583 (1994); Myszkowski v. Penn Stroud Hotel, Inc., 430 Pa.Super. 315, 634 A.2d 622, 626 (1993); Burnatoski v. Butler Ambulance Serv. Co., 130 Pa.Cmwlth. 264, 567 A.2d 1121, 1124 (1989). The party seeking vicarious liability bears the burden of proving a master-servant relationship. See Basile v. H&R Block, Inc., 563 Pa. 359, 761 A.2d 1115, 1120 (2000).