Vicarious liability was, and it remains, curiously unsatisfactory. After a period of stability from the Middle Ages into the early modern period in the late seventeenth into the early eighteenth century, the existing law of vicarious liability began to be challenged. The mid-nineteenth century saw another reappraisal coinciding with the rise of notions of fault. The period that follows, from the late nineteenth century until after the Second World War period has not attracted much comment. One key debate in this period and earlier which provides a useful lens to examine the doctrine was whether vicarious liability should be properly characterised as a master's or servant's tort theory. The history of the doctrine during this period goes some way to explaining why the modern law remains incoherent.

中文翻译：

---

对替代责任的历史检验：“名副其实的乌帕斯树”？

替代责任过去和现在仍然令人不满意。在经历了从中世纪到十七世纪末到十八世纪初的一段稳定时期之后，现行的替代责任法开始受到挑战。十九世纪中叶，随着过错概念的兴起，又一次重新评估。随后的时期，从 19 世纪末期到二战后的时期，并没有引起太多的评论。这一时期及更早时期的一个关键辩论为检验该学说提供了一个有用的视角，即是否应将替代责任适当地定性为主人或仆人的侵权理论。这一时期的学说历史在某种程度上解释了为什么现代法律仍然不连贯。