Vicarious liability has lacked the agreeable and undisputable rationale which can legally justify imposing this liability. The main obstacle which all justifications have been confronted with is that this liability is imposed regardless of any fault or negligence on the part of the employer. This distinguishing characteristic apparently conflicts with the foundations of tort law which is fault-based. In this paper, the authors discuss the absence of agreeable justification for vicarious liability and try to offer a solution. But first, the historical background of this kind of liability should be reviewed, which will help to understand rationales offered during historical periods. Secondly, the research will try to analyse current theories according to which scholars try to justify imposing this liability so that we can find the reason of their failure in giving an acceptable reason for imposing vicarious liability. However, to hold an employer liable, some prerequisites must be satisfied that will be discussed in this article.
