Principles: A servant is one who is employed to do some work for his employ er (master). He is engaged under a contract of service. He works directly under the control and directions of his master. In general, the master is vicariously liable for those torts (wrongful acts) of his servant which are done by the servant in the course of his employment.Facts:M appointed D exclusively for the purpose of driving his tourist vehicle. M also appointed C exclusively for the purpose of performing the work of a conductor for the tourist vehicle. During one trip, at the end of the journey, C, while D was not on the drivers seat, and apparently for the purpose of turning the vehicle in the right direction for the next journey, drove it through the street at high speed, and negligently injured P. a)M could be made liable for the act of C, as his (Cs) act of driving the vehicle was within his scope of employment.b)M is not liable as he was not present at the time of accident.c)M could not be made liable for the act of C, as his (Cs) act of d riving the vehicle was not in the course of his employment.d)M could be made liable for the act of C, as C was employed nder a contract of service.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Principles:• A servant is one who is em...

Principles:

• A servant is one who is employed to do some work for his employ er (master). He is engaged under a contract of service. He works directly under the control and directions of his master.
• In general, the master is vicariously liable for those torts (wrongful acts) of his servant which are done by the servant in the course of his employment.

Facts:

'M' appointed 'D' exclusively for the purpose of driving his tourist vehicle. 'M' also appointed 'C' exclusively for the purpose of performing the work of a conductor for the tourist vehicle. During one trip, at the end of the journey, 'C', while 'D' was not on the driver's seat, and apparently for the purpose of turning the vehicle in the right direction for the next journey, drove it through the street at high speed, and negligently injured 'P'.

a)
'M' could be made liable for the act of 'C', as his (C's) act of driving the vehicle was within his scope of employment.
b)
'M' is not liable as he was not present at the time of accident.
c)
'M' could not be made liable for the act of 'C', as his (C's) act of d riving the vehicle was not in the course of his employment.
d)
'M' could be made liable for the act of 'C', as 'C' was employed nder a contract of service.

Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Join for Free

Join for Free

Most Upvoted Answer

Principles:• A servant is one who is employed to do some work fo...

A would be the correct answer as done in the course of employment

Answered by Glance Learning Institute · View profile

Free Test

FREE

Test: CLAT 2016 Past Year Paper
200 Ques | 120 Min

Start Free Test

View all free CLAT tests

Community Answer

Principles:• A servant is one who is employed to do some work fo...

A would be the answer as it is clearly mentioned in the fact

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Direction: You have been given some passages followed by questions based on each passage. You are required to choose the most appropriate option which follows from the passage. Only the information given in the passage should be used for choosing the answer and no external knowledge of law howsoever prominent is to be applied.Vicarious liability has been considered by Englands highest courts in a flood of cases in recent years and the law has taken another step forward with judgments from the Supreme Court; Originally, the doctrine of vicarious liability was confined to cases where a wrongdoer was employed by a defendant.It was later recognised that a relationship can give rise to vicarious liability even in the absence of a contract of employment, e.g., where an employer lends his employee to a third party, the third party may be treated as the employerfor vicarious liability purposes.In the Christian Brothers Case, the Court considered the general approach in deciding whether a relationship other than one of employment can give rise to vicarious liability, subject to there being a sufficient connection between that relationship and the tort in question and extended the scope of the doctrine.That case concerned whether the defendant, an international unincorporated association whose mission was to provide children with a Christian education, was vicariously liable for the sexual abuse of children by members of the institute, otherwise known as brothers, who taught at an approved school. The Supreme Court held that it was.Lord Phillips stated that: "The relationship that gives rise to vicarious liability is in the vast majority of cases that of employer and employee under a contract of employment. The employer will be vicariously liable when the employee commits a tort in the course of his employment. There is no difficulty in identifying a number of policy reasons that usually make it fair, just and reasonable to impose vicarious liability on the employer when these criteria are satisfied:1. The employer is more likely to have the means to compensate the victim than the employee and can be expected to have insured against that liability;2. The tort will have been committed as a result of activity being taken by the employee on behalf of the employer;3. The employees activity is likely to be part of the business activity of the employer;4. The employee will, to a greater or lesser degree, have been under the control of the employer."He added that: "Where the defendant and tortfeasor are not bound by a contract of employment, but their relationship has the same incidents, that relationship can give rise to vicarious liability on the ground that its akin to that between an employer and an employee."A is a servant in Bs house. He is employed exclusively for taking care of Bs sick father. His working hours arefrom 10 am to 8 pm. B works at a company as an insurance agent. Once, when he was sick home, he needed some papers delivered at the office. One day, at 6 pm, B asked A to do him a favour, take his car and deliver the papers to his office. A hits C, a pedestrian on the way to Bs office. C sues B for the injury caused to him through As negligent driving. Will B be vicariously liable?

View answer

Direction: You have been given some passages followed by questions based on this passage. You are required to choose the most appropriate option which follows from the passage. Only the information given in the passage should be used for choosing the answer and no external knowledge of law howsoever prominent is to be applied.Vicarious liability has been considered by England's highest courts in a flood of cases in recent years and the law has taken another step forward with judgments from the Supreme Court; Originally, the doctrine of vicarious liability was confined to cases where a wrongdoer was employed by a defendant.It was later recognised that a relationship can give rise to vicarious liability even in the absence of a contract of employment, e.g., where an employer lends his employee to a third party, the third party may be treated as the employer for vicarious liability purposes.In the Christian Brothers Case, the Court considered the general approach in deciding whether a relationship other than one of employment can give rise to vicarious liability, subject to there being a sufficient connection between that relationship and the tort in question and extended the scope of the doctrine.That case concerned whether the defendant, an international unincorporated association whose mission was to provide children with a Christian education, was vicariously liable for the sexual abuse of children by members of the institute, otherwise known as brothers, who taught at an approved school. The Supreme Court held that it was.Lord Phillips stated that: "The relationship that gives rise to vicarious liability is in the vast majority of cases that of employer and employee under a contract of employment. The employer will be vicariously liable when the employee commits a tort in the course of his employment. There is no difficulty in identifying a number of policy reasons that usually make it fair, just and reasonable to impose vicarious liability on the employer when these criteria are satisfied: The employer is more likely to have the means to compensate the victim than the employee and can be expected to have insured against that liability; The tort will have been committed as a result of activity being taken by the employee on behalf of the employer; The employee's activity is likely to be part of the business activity of the employer; The employee will, to a greater or lesser degree, have been under the control of the employer." He added that:"Where the defendant and tortfeasor are not bound by a contract of employment, but their relationship has the same incidents, that relationship can give rise to vicarious liability on the ground that it's 'akin to that between an employer and an employee."Q. A is a servant in B's house. He is employed exclusively for taking care of B's sick father. His working hours are from 10 am to 8 pm. B works at a company as an insurance agent. Once, when he was sick home, he needed some papers delivered at the office. One day, at 6 pm, B asked A to do him a favour, take his car and deliver the papers to his office. A hits C, a pedestrian on the way to B's office.C sues B for the injury caused to him through A's negligent driving. Will B be vicariously liable?

View answer

Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.Vicarious liability deals with situations in which an individual has committed a tortious act whilst acting on behalf of another. The primary situation in which the concept will arise is one in which someone is acting on behalf of an employer. An explanation for this phenomenon can be seen in Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam [2002] 3 WLR 1913 per Lord Nicholls:"The underlying legal policy is based on the recognition that carrying on a business enterprise necessarily involves risk to others. It involves the risk that others will be harmed by wrongful acts committed by the agents through whom the business is carried on. When those risks ripen into loss, it is just that the business should be responsible for compensating the person who has been wronged."Vicarious liability is a way in which any of the other torts can be attributed to a particular defendant, even if that defendant was not directly involved in the tort.Establishing vicarious liability requires three primary criteria to be met. There must be a relationship of control, a tortious act, and that act must be in the course of employment. The courts will first look for a sufficiently close relationship between tortfeasor and third party before it allows vicarious liability to be imparted.The most commonly encountered relationship is employer-employee and a number of tests to distinguish between employees and contractors-The first is the 'control test' involving who, exactly, is in control of the individual's work. The 'organisation' or 'integration test' distinguishes between people who sign 'contracts of service' and those who 'contract to provide services'. The 'economic reality test' is sometimes referred to as the 'multiple test' or the 'pragmatic test'. It involves examining the characteristics of the subject's work arrangements against a checklist of signs of conventional employment.Once a sufficiently close relationship has been established, it must be shown that the individual has committed a tortious act. This is because no secondary liability can be imposed on a third party before someone acting on their behalf has attracted primary liability. This means that whether vicarious liability is possible depends on whether liability exists for the relevant tort.An employer is not responsible for all of the acts one of their employees carries out. Instead, for vicarious liability to be possible, the tortious act must occur in the course of employment. If the relevant relationship is not employer employee, then the same principle applies but in a modified form. There are several categories of employment scenarios which can arise with regard to this element of vicarious liability.Q. Andrew was asked by Collin, his employer to deliver a truck full of logs to Hanskinton. Collin gave direction to take road X which is the long cut. In order to finish work early Andrew took the road Z which was shortcut but bumpy. While driving, one of the logs slipped the rope tying and hurt Zingo who was riding just behind Andrew's truck. Is Colin liable?

View answer

Direction: You have been given some passages followed by questions based on each passage. You are required to choose the most appropriate option which follows from the passage. Only the information given in the passage should be used for choosing the answer and no external knowledge of law howsoever prominent is to be applied.Vicarious liability has been considered by Englands highest courts in a flood of cases in recent years and the law has taken another step forward with judgments from the Supreme Court; Originally, the doctrine of vicarious liability was confined to cases where a wrongdoer was employed by a defendant.It was later recognised that a relationship can give rise to vicarious liability even in the absence of a contract of employment, e.g., where an employer lends his employee to a third party, the third party may be treated as the employerfor vicarious liability purposes.In the Christian Brothers Case, the Court considered the general approach in deciding whether a relationship other than one of employment can give rise to vicarious liability, subject to there being a sufficient connection between that relationship and the tort in question and extended the scope of the doctrine.That case concerned whether the defendant, an international unincorporated association whose mission was to provide children with a Christian education, was vicariously liable for the sexual abuse of children by members of the institute, otherwise known as brothers, who taught at an approved school. The Supreme Court held that it was.Lord Phillips stated that: "The relationship that gives rise to vicarious liability is in the vast majority of cases that of employer and employee under a contract of employment. The employer will be vicariously liable when the employee commits a tort in the course of his employment. There is no difficulty in identifying a number of policy reasons that usually make it fair, just and reasonable to impose vicarious liability on the employer when these criteria are satisfied:1. The employer is more likely to have the means to compensate the victim than the employee and can be expected to have insured against that liability;2. The tort will have been committed as a result of activity being taken by the employee on behalf of the employer;3. The employees activity is likely to be part of the business activity of the employer;4. The employee will, to a greater or lesser degree, have been under the control of the employer."He added that: "Where the defendant and tortfeasor are not bound by a contract of employment, but their relationship has the same incidents, that relationship can give rise to vicarious liability on the ground that its akin to that between an employer and an employee."X was the driver of Y Z a friend of Y asked him to lend his driver to drop his in laws to the airport. X was asked by Z to go directly come to his house after dropping them. While returning from the airport he fell asleep and ran into a car of the plaintiff. Decide.

View answer

Direction: You have been given some passages followed by questions based on this passage. You are required to choose the most appropriate option which follows from the passage. Only the information given in the passage should be used for choosing the answer and no external knowledge of law howsoever prominent is to be applied.Vicarious liability has been considered by England's highest courts in a flood of cases in recent years and the law has taken another step forward with judgments from the Supreme Court; Originally, the doctrine of vicarious liability was confined to cases where a wrongdoer was employed by a defendant.It was later recognised that a relationship can give rise to vicarious liability even in the absence of a contract of employment, e.g., where an employer lends his employee to a third party, the third party may be treated as the employer for vicarious liability purposes.In the Christian Brothers Case, the Court considered the general approach in deciding whether a relationship other than one of employment can give rise to vicarious liability, subject to there being a sufficient connection between that relationship and the tort in question and extended the scope of the doctrine.That case concerned whether the defendant, an international unincorporated association whose mission was to provide children with a Christian education, was vicariously liable for the sexual abuse of children by members of the institute, otherwise known as brothers, who taught at an approved school. The Supreme Court held that it was.Lord Phillips stated that: "The relationship that gives rise to vicarious liability is in the vast majority of cases that of employer and employee under a contract of employment. The employer will be vicariously liable when the employee commits a tort in the course of his employment. There is no difficulty in identifying a number of policy reasons that usually make it fair, just and reasonable to impose vicarious liability on the employer when these criteria are satisfied: The employer is more likely to have the means to compensate the victim than the employee and can be expected to have insured against that liability; The tort will have been committed as a result of activity being taken by the employee on behalf of the employer; The employee's activity is likely to be part of the business activity of the employer; The employee will, to a greater or lesser degree, have been under the control of the employer." He added that:"Where the defendant and tortfeasor are not bound by a contract of employment, but their relationship has the same incidents, that relationship can give rise to vicarious liability on the ground that it's 'akin to that between an employer and an employee."Q. X was the driver of Y. Z a friend of Y asked him to lend his driver to drop his in laws to the airport. X was asked by Z to go directly come to his house after dropping them. While returning from the airport he fell asleep and ran into a car of the plaintiff. Decide.

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

CLAT Mock Test Series 2025

Crash Course for CLAT

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

Principles:• A servant is one who is employed to do some work for his employ er (master). He is engaged under a contract of service. He works directly under the control and directions of his master.• In general, the master is vicariously liable for those torts (wrongful acts) of his servant which are done by the servant in the course of his employment.Facts:'M' appointed 'D' exclusively for the purpose of driving his tourist vehicle. 'M' also appointed 'C' exclusively for the purpose of performing the work of a conductor for the tourist vehicle. During one trip, at the end of the journey, 'C', while 'D' was not on the driver's seat, and apparently for the purpose of turning the vehicle in the right direction for the next journey, drove it through the street at high speed, and negligently injured 'P'. a)'M' could be made liable for the act of 'C', as his (C's) act of driving the vehicle was within his scope of employment.b)'M' is not liable as he was not present at the time of accident.c)'M' could not be made liable for the act of 'C', as his (C's) act of d riving the vehicle was not in the course of his employment.d)'M' could be made liable for the act of 'C', as 'C' was employed nder a contract of service.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Principles:• A servant is one who is employed to do some work for his employ er (master). He is engaged under a contract of service. He works directly under the control and directions of his master.• In general, the master is vicariously liable for those torts (wrongful acts) of his servant which are done by the servant in the course of his employment.Facts:'M' appointed 'D' exclusively for the purpose of driving his tourist vehicle. 'M' also appointed 'C' exclusively for the purpose of performing the work of a conductor for the tourist vehicle. During one trip, at the end of the journey, 'C', while 'D' was not on the driver's seat, and apparently for the purpose of turning the vehicle in the right direction for the next journey, drove it through the street at high speed, and negligently injured 'P'. a)'M' could be made liable for the act of 'C', as his (C's) act of driving the vehicle was within his scope of employment.b)'M' is not liable as he was not present at the time of accident.c)'M' could not be made liable for the act of 'C', as his (C's) act of d riving the vehicle was not in the course of his employment.d)'M' could be made liable for the act of 'C', as 'C' was employed nder a contract of service.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Principles:• A servant is one who is employed to do some work for his employ er (master). He is engaged under a contract of service. He works directly under the control and directions of his master.• In general, the master is vicariously liable for those torts (wrongful acts) of his servant which are done by the servant in the course of his employment.Facts:'M' appointed 'D' exclusively for the purpose of driving his tourist vehicle. 'M' also appointed 'C' exclusively for the purpose of performing the work of a conductor for the tourist vehicle. During one trip, at the end of the journey, 'C', while 'D' was not on the driver's seat, and apparently for the purpose of turning the vehicle in the right direction for the next journey, drove it through the street at high speed, and negligently injured 'P'. a)'M' could be made liable for the act of 'C', as his (C's) act of driving the vehicle was within his scope of employment.b)'M' is not liable as he was not present at the time of accident.c)'M' could not be made liable for the act of 'C', as his (C's) act of d riving the vehicle was not in the course of his employment.d)'M' could be made liable for the act of 'C', as 'C' was employed nder a contract of service.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Principles:• A servant is one who is employed to do some work for his employ er (master). He is engaged under a contract of service. He works directly under the control and directions of his master.• In general, the master is vicariously liable for those torts (wrongful acts) of his servant which are done by the servant in the course of his employment.Facts:'M' appointed 'D' exclusively for the purpose of driving his tourist vehicle. 'M' also appointed 'C' exclusively for the purpose of performing the work of a conductor for the tourist vehicle. During one trip, at the end of the journey, 'C', while 'D' was not on the driver's seat, and apparently for the purpose of turning the vehicle in the right direction for the next journey, drove it through the street at high speed, and negligently injured 'P'. a)'M' could be made liable for the act of 'C', as his (C's) act of driving the vehicle was within his scope of employment.b)'M' is not liable as he was not present at the time of accident.c)'M' could not be made liable for the act of 'C', as his (C's) act of d riving the vehicle was not in the course of his employment.d)'M' could be made liable for the act of 'C', as 'C' was employed nder a contract of service.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Principles:• A servant is one who is employed to do some work for his employ er (master). He is engaged under a contract of service. He works directly under the control and directions of his master.• In general, the master is vicariously liable for those torts (wrongful acts) of his servant which are done by the servant in the course of his employment.Facts:'M' appointed 'D' exclusively for the purpose of driving his tourist vehicle. 'M' also appointed 'C' exclusively for the purpose of performing the work of a conductor for the tourist vehicle. During one trip, at the end of the journey, 'C', while 'D' was not on the driver's seat, and apparently for the purpose of turning the vehicle in the right direction for the next journey, drove it through the street at high speed, and negligently injured 'P'. a)'M' could be made liable for the act of 'C', as his (C's) act of driving the vehicle was within his scope of employment.b)'M' is not liable as he was not present at the time of accident.c)'M' could not be made liable for the act of 'C', as his (C's) act of d riving the vehicle was not in the course of his employment.d)'M' could be made liable for the act of 'C', as 'C' was employed nder a contract of service.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Principles:• A servant is one who is employed to do some work for his employ er (master). He is engaged under a contract of service. He works directly under the control and directions of his master.• In general, the master is vicariously liable for those torts (wrongful acts) of his servant which are done by the servant in the course of his employment.Facts:'M' appointed 'D' exclusively for the purpose of driving his tourist vehicle. 'M' also appointed 'C' exclusively for the purpose of performing the work of a conductor for the tourist vehicle. During one trip, at the end of the journey, 'C', while 'D' was not on the driver's seat, and apparently for the purpose of turning the vehicle in the right direction for the next journey, drove it through the street at high speed, and negligently injured 'P'. a)'M' could be made liable for the act of 'C', as his (C's) act of driving the vehicle was within his scope of employment.b)'M' is not liable as he was not present at the time of accident.c)'M' could not be made liable for the act of 'C', as his (C's) act of d riving the vehicle was not in the course of his employment.d)'M' could be made liable for the act of 'C', as 'C' was employed nder a contract of service.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Principles:• A servant is one who is employed to do some work for his employ er (master). He is engaged under a contract of service. He works directly under the control and directions of his master.• In general, the master is vicariously liable for those torts (wrongful acts) of his servant which are done by the servant in the course of his employment.Facts:'M' appointed 'D' exclusively for the purpose of driving his tourist vehicle. 'M' also appointed 'C' exclusively for the purpose of performing the work of a conductor for the tourist vehicle. During one trip, at the end of the journey, 'C', while 'D' was not on the driver's seat, and apparently for the purpose of turning the vehicle in the right direction for the next journey, drove it through the street at high speed, and negligently injured 'P'. a)'M' could be made liable for the act of 'C', as his (C's) act of driving the vehicle was within his scope of employment.b)'M' is not liable as he was not present at the time of accident.c)'M' could not be made liable for the act of 'C', as his (C's) act of d riving the vehicle was not in the course of his employment.d)'M' could be made liable for the act of 'C', as 'C' was employed nder a contract of service.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Principles:• A servant is one who is employed to do some work for his employ er (master). He is engaged under a contract of service. He works directly under the control and directions of his master.• In general, the master is vicariously liable for those torts (wrongful acts) of his servant which are done by the servant in the course of his employment.Facts:'M' appointed 'D' exclusively for the purpose of driving his tourist vehicle. 'M' also appointed 'C' exclusively for the purpose of performing the work of a conductor for the tourist vehicle. During one trip, at the end of the journey, 'C', while 'D' was not on the driver's seat, and apparently for the purpose of turning the vehicle in the right direction for the next journey, drove it through the street at high speed, and negligently injured 'P'. a)'M' could be made liable for the act of 'C', as his (C's) act of driving the vehicle was within his scope of employment.b)'M' is not liable as he was not present at the time of accident.c)'M' could not be made liable for the act of 'C', as his (C's) act of d riving the vehicle was not in the course of his employment.d)'M' could be made liable for the act of 'C', as 'C' was employed nder a contract of service.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Principles:• A servant is one who is employed to do some work for his employ er (master). He is engaged under a contract of service. He works directly under the control and directions of his master.• In general, the master is vicariously liable for those torts (wrongful acts) of his servant which are done by the servant in the course of his employment.Facts:'M' appointed 'D' exclusively for the purpose of driving his tourist vehicle. 'M' also appointed 'C' exclusively for the purpose of performing the work of a conductor for the tourist vehicle. During one trip, at the end of the journey, 'C', while 'D' was not on the driver's seat, and apparently for the purpose of turning the vehicle in the right direction for the next journey, drove it through the street at high speed, and negligently injured 'P'. a)'M' could be made liable for the act of 'C', as his (C's) act of driving the vehicle was within his scope of employment.b)'M' is not liable as he was not present at the time of accident.c)'M' could not be made liable for the act of 'C', as his (C's) act of d riving the vehicle was not in the course of his employment.d)'M' could be made liable for the act of 'C', as 'C' was employed nder a contract of service.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Principles:• A servant is one who is employed to do some work for his employ er (master). He is engaged under a contract of service. He works directly under the control and directions of his master.• In general, the master is vicariously liable for those torts (wrongful acts) of his servant which are done by the servant in the course of his employment.Facts:'M' appointed 'D' exclusively for the purpose of driving his tourist vehicle. 'M' also appointed 'C' exclusively for the purpose of performing the work of a conductor for the tourist vehicle. During one trip, at the end of the journey, 'C', while 'D' was not on the driver's seat, and apparently for the purpose of turning the vehicle in the right direction for the next journey, drove it through the street at high speed, and negligently injured 'P'. a)'M' could be made liable for the act of 'C', as his (C's) act of driving the vehicle was within his scope of employment.b)'M' is not liable as he was not present at the time of accident.c)'M' could not be made liable for the act of 'C', as his (C's) act of d riving the vehicle was not in the course of his employment.d)'M' could be made liable for the act of 'C', as 'C' was employed nder a contract of service.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam