All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CLAT Exam  >  CLAT Questions  >  Principle 1 – The Principal is liable f... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
Principle 1 – The Principal is liable for all acts of the agent done in the course of employment.
Principle 2 – When a servant commits a mistake while acting on behalf of his master, causing loss to the plaintiff thereby, the master will be liable for the same.
Principle 3 – Generally, the employer is not liable for torts committed by an independent contractor working for him.
Exception – The employer will be held liable for the acts of an independent contractor if he authorizes the doing of an illegal act.
Explanation – An independent contractor is one who is not under the complete direction and control of the employer.
Principle 4 – If the servant acts negligently in the performance of his duties or displays reckless behaviour, thereby causing loss to the plaintiff, the master will be held liable.
Principle 5 – If the servant does an act in defiance of an express prohibition, and the act is outside the course of employment, then the master cannot be held liable for harm arising out of such an act.
Facts – Seashell Petroleum Co. has a large number of drivers employed under the Company, who drive petrol tankers and fill uppetrol in underground tanks at petrol bunks invarious cities. Reuben was one such driveremployed by Seashell. One day, while fillingup a tank with petrol, Reuben carelessly lightsa match, lights his cigarette, and throws theglowing splinter on the floor. A fire starts in thepetrol bunk, as a result, and severe damage iscaused to life and property. Who should beheld liable for this loss?
  • a)
    Reuben should be held liable. He has beencareless about his duties.
  • b)
    Seashell would be held liable, as they hademployed Reuben, and Reuben’s negligentact was committed in the course of hisemployment.
  • c)
    Seashell would be liable only to a limitedextent, as the harm was directly the result ofReuben’s negligence.
  • d)
    Neither Reuben nor Seashell will be heldliable. This was an act of God.
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Most Upvoted Answer
Principle 1 – The Principal is liable for all acts of the agent ...
Relation of Ruban and seashall petroleum co. is servent amd employer .
so , this ques will use principle 2 ,4 and 5
since , act of Ruban, was not in defiance of experss prohibition and was in course of employment .so employer that is seashall would be liable .option B is correct .
Attention CLAT Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed CLAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in CLAT.
< Previous Question Next Question >
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.The Supreme Court has held that office of the Chief Justice of India is a public authority under the transparency law, the Right to Information Act."Transparency doesn’t undermine judicial independence," the Supreme Court said in a unanimous verdict on Wednesday as it upheld the Delhi High Court judgment which ruled that office of the Chief Justice comes under the purview of RTI.The Supreme Court, however, said that confidentiality and right to privacy have to be maintained and added that RTI can’t be used for as a tool of surveillance. It also said only names of judges recommended by the collegium can be disclosed, not the reasons.The bench, headed by the chief justice, had wrapped up the hearing, saying nobody wants a "system of opaqueness", but the judiciary cannot be destroyed in the name of transparency."Nobody wants to remain in the state of darkness or keep anybody in the state of darkness," it had said. "The question is drawing a line. In the name of transparency, you cant destroy the institution."The caseThe move to bring the office of the CJI under the transparency law was initiated by RTI activist SC Agrawal. His lawyer Prashant Bhushan had submitted in the top court that though the SC should not have been judging its own cause, it is hearing the appeals due to "doctrine of necessity".The lawyer had described the reluctance of the judiciary in parting information under the Right To Information Act as "unfortunate" and "disturbing", asking: "Do judges inhabit different universe?"He had submitted that the apex court has always stood for transparency in the functioning of other organs of State, but it develops cold feet when its own issues require attention.Referring to the RTI provisions, Bhushan had said they also deal with exemptions and information that cannot be given to applicants, but the public interest should always "outweigh" personal interests if the person concerned is holding or about to hold a public office.Dealing with "judicial independence", he said the National Judicial Accountability Commission Act was struck down for protecting the judiciary against interference from the executive, but this did not mean that judiciary is free from "public scrutiny"."This is not the independence from accountability. Independence of judiciary means it has to be independent from the executive and not independent from common public. People are entitled to know as to what public authorities are doing," Bhushan had said.The deliberations of the collegium in appointing and overlooking judges or lawyers should be made public and information can be parted with under RTI on case-to-case basis keeping in mind the larger public interest, the lawyer had said.Q.As per the petitioner, when should information about the discussions regarding the appointment of judges by the collegium not be withheld?

Direction: Answer the question, based on the following information. Indicate which of the statements given with that particular question, is consistent with the information given in the passage below.A Holistic Viewpoint It is now recognised by modern science that the universe at the subatomic level does not have solid material objects, but consists of only wavelike patterns which represent probabilities of interconnections between other interconnections, all of which together constitute an inseparable web of inter-relationshipsconstituting the entire universe. Fritj of Capra therefore, views the universe not as “an assemblage of independent parts” but as “a dynamic web of inter-related events” in which each part of the web determines the structure of the whole. Geoffrey Chew views such inter-penetrating and interdependent relationships in the universe in terms of a “bootstrap” theory which implies that all forces in the universe are inseparably linked together, every part affects every other part, and the whole world is held together so to say, by bootstraps. David Bohm refers to a holographic concept which implies not only that every part is connected with every other part within the whole but also that, in a sense, each part contains the whole. This, according to David Bohm, recognises the “Undivided wholeness” of the entire universe instead of the classical idea of analysability of the world into separately and independently existent parts.Choose the appropriate option

Anything founded on the basis of unity has scope for growth. When that unity moves towards integrality, the impetus for growth gets stronger. Mind operates by dividing reality into parts and regarding each as a whole in itself. It is an instrument of division. But its division is creative in that it expresses unity through division. In early civilizations, all life activities were centered on basic survival. Family, religion, production, festivals, trade, etc. were all closely interlinked. As society became more sophisticated, each sector acquired a life of its own and began to develop independently of the others. Thus, trade, commerce, banking and other sectors each developed a life of its own. Such a division eventually led to segregated specialization and fragmentation of knowledge, institutions and activities. These divisions appear real to the mind that accepts them, but social reality remains undivided and integrated.Current theories regard economy as a separate and independent sphere of activity, ignoring its inextricable linkages with politics, law, ecology, culture and the underlying forces of social power. Economics generally ignores the impact of subjective psychological and cultural factors on economic and social outcomes or applies simplistic assumptions far removed from the real world.This fragmentation has been stretched to the point of regarding finance as a field independent of the real economy.Q. Which of the following lines from the passage indicates that the mind can be deceived?

Top Courses for CLATView all

Top Courses for CLAT

Principle 1 – The Principal is liable for all acts of the agent done in the course of employment.Principle 2 – When a servant commits a mistake while acting on behalf of his master, causing loss to the plaintiff thereby, the master will be liable for the same.Principle 3 – Generally, the employer is not liable for torts committed by an independent contractor working for him.Exception – The employer will be held liable for the acts of an independent contractor if he authorizes the doing of an illegal act.Explanation – An independent contractor is one who is not under the complete direction and control of the employer.Principle 4 – If the servant acts negligently in the performance of his duties or displays reckless behaviour, thereby causing loss to the plaintiff, the master will be held liable.Principle 5 – If the servant does an act in defiance of an express prohibition, and the act is outside the course of employment, then the master cannot be held liable for harm arising out of such an act.Facts – Seashell Petroleum Co. has a large number of drivers employed under the Company, who drive petrol tankers and fill uppetrol in underground tanks at petrol bunks invarious cities. Reuben was one such driveremployed by Seashell. One day, while fillingup a tank with petrol, Reuben carelessly lightsa match, lights his cigarette, and throws theglowing splinter on the floor. A fire starts in thepetrol bunk, as a result, and severe damage iscaused to life and property. Who should beheld liable for this loss?a)Reuben should be held liable. He has beencareless about his duties.b)Seashell would be held liable, as they hademployed Reuben, and Reuben’s negligentact was committed in the course of hisemployment.c)Seashell would be liable only to a limitedextent, as the harm was directly the result ofReuben’s negligence.d)Neither Reuben nor Seashell will be heldliable. This was an act of God.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Principle 1 – The Principal is liable for all acts of the agent done in the course of employment.Principle 2 – When a servant commits a mistake while acting on behalf of his master, causing loss to the plaintiff thereby, the master will be liable for the same.Principle 3 – Generally, the employer is not liable for torts committed by an independent contractor working for him.Exception – The employer will be held liable for the acts of an independent contractor if he authorizes the doing of an illegal act.Explanation – An independent contractor is one who is not under the complete direction and control of the employer.Principle 4 – If the servant acts negligently in the performance of his duties or displays reckless behaviour, thereby causing loss to the plaintiff, the master will be held liable.Principle 5 – If the servant does an act in defiance of an express prohibition, and the act is outside the course of employment, then the master cannot be held liable for harm arising out of such an act.Facts – Seashell Petroleum Co. has a large number of drivers employed under the Company, who drive petrol tankers and fill uppetrol in underground tanks at petrol bunks invarious cities. Reuben was one such driveremployed by Seashell. One day, while fillingup a tank with petrol, Reuben carelessly lightsa match, lights his cigarette, and throws theglowing splinter on the floor. A fire starts in thepetrol bunk, as a result, and severe damage iscaused to life and property. Who should beheld liable for this loss?a)Reuben should be held liable. He has beencareless about his duties.b)Seashell would be held liable, as they hademployed Reuben, and Reuben’s negligentact was committed in the course of hisemployment.c)Seashell would be liable only to a limitedextent, as the harm was directly the result ofReuben’s negligence.d)Neither Reuben nor Seashell will be heldliable. This was an act of God.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Principle 1 – The Principal is liable for all acts of the agent done in the course of employment.Principle 2 – When a servant commits a mistake while acting on behalf of his master, causing loss to the plaintiff thereby, the master will be liable for the same.Principle 3 – Generally, the employer is not liable for torts committed by an independent contractor working for him.Exception – The employer will be held liable for the acts of an independent contractor if he authorizes the doing of an illegal act.Explanation – An independent contractor is one who is not under the complete direction and control of the employer.Principle 4 – If the servant acts negligently in the performance of his duties or displays reckless behaviour, thereby causing loss to the plaintiff, the master will be held liable.Principle 5 – If the servant does an act in defiance of an express prohibition, and the act is outside the course of employment, then the master cannot be held liable for harm arising out of such an act.Facts – Seashell Petroleum Co. has a large number of drivers employed under the Company, who drive petrol tankers and fill uppetrol in underground tanks at petrol bunks invarious cities. Reuben was one such driveremployed by Seashell. One day, while fillingup a tank with petrol, Reuben carelessly lightsa match, lights his cigarette, and throws theglowing splinter on the floor. A fire starts in thepetrol bunk, as a result, and severe damage iscaused to life and property. Who should beheld liable for this loss?a)Reuben should be held liable. He has beencareless about his duties.b)Seashell would be held liable, as they hademployed Reuben, and Reuben’s negligentact was committed in the course of hisemployment.c)Seashell would be liable only to a limitedextent, as the harm was directly the result ofReuben’s negligence.d)Neither Reuben nor Seashell will be heldliable. This was an act of God.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Principle 1 – The Principal is liable for all acts of the agent done in the course of employment.Principle 2 – When a servant commits a mistake while acting on behalf of his master, causing loss to the plaintiff thereby, the master will be liable for the same.Principle 3 – Generally, the employer is not liable for torts committed by an independent contractor working for him.Exception – The employer will be held liable for the acts of an independent contractor if he authorizes the doing of an illegal act.Explanation – An independent contractor is one who is not under the complete direction and control of the employer.Principle 4 – If the servant acts negligently in the performance of his duties or displays reckless behaviour, thereby causing loss to the plaintiff, the master will be held liable.Principle 5 – If the servant does an act in defiance of an express prohibition, and the act is outside the course of employment, then the master cannot be held liable for harm arising out of such an act.Facts – Seashell Petroleum Co. has a large number of drivers employed under the Company, who drive petrol tankers and fill uppetrol in underground tanks at petrol bunks invarious cities. Reuben was one such driveremployed by Seashell. One day, while fillingup a tank with petrol, Reuben carelessly lightsa match, lights his cigarette, and throws theglowing splinter on the floor. A fire starts in thepetrol bunk, as a result, and severe damage iscaused to life and property. Who should beheld liable for this loss?a)Reuben should be held liable. He has beencareless about his duties.b)Seashell would be held liable, as they hademployed Reuben, and Reuben’s negligentact was committed in the course of hisemployment.c)Seashell would be liable only to a limitedextent, as the harm was directly the result ofReuben’s negligence.d)Neither Reuben nor Seashell will be heldliable. This was an act of God.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Principle 1 – The Principal is liable for all acts of the agent done in the course of employment.Principle 2 – When a servant commits a mistake while acting on behalf of his master, causing loss to the plaintiff thereby, the master will be liable for the same.Principle 3 – Generally, the employer is not liable for torts committed by an independent contractor working for him.Exception – The employer will be held liable for the acts of an independent contractor if he authorizes the doing of an illegal act.Explanation – An independent contractor is one who is not under the complete direction and control of the employer.Principle 4 – If the servant acts negligently in the performance of his duties or displays reckless behaviour, thereby causing loss to the plaintiff, the master will be held liable.Principle 5 – If the servant does an act in defiance of an express prohibition, and the act is outside the course of employment, then the master cannot be held liable for harm arising out of such an act.Facts – Seashell Petroleum Co. has a large number of drivers employed under the Company, who drive petrol tankers and fill uppetrol in underground tanks at petrol bunks invarious cities. Reuben was one such driveremployed by Seashell. One day, while fillingup a tank with petrol, Reuben carelessly lightsa match, lights his cigarette, and throws theglowing splinter on the floor. A fire starts in thepetrol bunk, as a result, and severe damage iscaused to life and property. Who should beheld liable for this loss?a)Reuben should be held liable. He has beencareless about his duties.b)Seashell would be held liable, as they hademployed Reuben, and Reuben’s negligentact was committed in the course of hisemployment.c)Seashell would be liable only to a limitedextent, as the harm was directly the result ofReuben’s negligence.d)Neither Reuben nor Seashell will be heldliable. This was an act of God.Correct answer is option 'B'. 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 Principle 1 – The Principal is liable for all acts of the agent done in the course of employment.Principle 2 – When a servant commits a mistake while acting on behalf of his master, causing loss to the plaintiff thereby, the master will be liable for the same.Principle 3 – Generally, the employer is not liable for torts committed by an independent contractor working for him.Exception – The employer will be held liable for the acts of an independent contractor if he authorizes the doing of an illegal act.Explanation – An independent contractor is one who is not under the complete direction and control of the employer.Principle 4 – If the servant acts negligently in the performance of his duties or displays reckless behaviour, thereby causing loss to the plaintiff, the master will be held liable.Principle 5 – If the servant does an act in defiance of an express prohibition, and the act is outside the course of employment, then the master cannot be held liable for harm arising out of such an act.Facts – Seashell Petroleum Co. has a large number of drivers employed under the Company, who drive petrol tankers and fill uppetrol in underground tanks at petrol bunks invarious cities. Reuben was one such driveremployed by Seashell. One day, while fillingup a tank with petrol, Reuben carelessly lightsa match, lights his cigarette, and throws theglowing splinter on the floor. A fire starts in thepetrol bunk, as a result, and severe damage iscaused to life and property. Who should beheld liable for this loss?a)Reuben should be held liable. He has beencareless about his duties.b)Seashell would be held liable, as they hademployed Reuben, and Reuben’s negligentact was committed in the course of hisemployment.c)Seashell would be liable only to a limitedextent, as the harm was directly the result ofReuben’s negligence.d)Neither Reuben nor Seashell will be heldliable. This was an act of God.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Principle 1 – The Principal is liable for all acts of the agent done in the course of employment.Principle 2 – When a servant commits a mistake while acting on behalf of his master, causing loss to the plaintiff thereby, the master will be liable for the same.Principle 3 – Generally, the employer is not liable for torts committed by an independent contractor working for him.Exception – The employer will be held liable for the acts of an independent contractor if he authorizes the doing of an illegal act.Explanation – An independent contractor is one who is not under the complete direction and control of the employer.Principle 4 – If the servant acts negligently in the performance of his duties or displays reckless behaviour, thereby causing loss to the plaintiff, the master will be held liable.Principle 5 – If the servant does an act in defiance of an express prohibition, and the act is outside the course of employment, then the master cannot be held liable for harm arising out of such an act.Facts – Seashell Petroleum Co. has a large number of drivers employed under the Company, who drive petrol tankers and fill uppetrol in underground tanks at petrol bunks invarious cities. Reuben was one such driveremployed by Seashell. One day, while fillingup a tank with petrol, Reuben carelessly lightsa match, lights his cigarette, and throws theglowing splinter on the floor. A fire starts in thepetrol bunk, as a result, and severe damage iscaused to life and property. Who should beheld liable for this loss?a)Reuben should be held liable. He has beencareless about his duties.b)Seashell would be held liable, as they hademployed Reuben, and Reuben’s negligentact was committed in the course of hisemployment.c)Seashell would be liable only to a limitedextent, as the harm was directly the result ofReuben’s negligence.d)Neither Reuben nor Seashell will be heldliable. This was an act of God.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Principle 1 – The Principal is liable for all acts of the agent done in the course of employment.Principle 2 – When a servant commits a mistake while acting on behalf of his master, causing loss to the plaintiff thereby, the master will be liable for the same.Principle 3 – Generally, the employer is not liable for torts committed by an independent contractor working for him.Exception – The employer will be held liable for the acts of an independent contractor if he authorizes the doing of an illegal act.Explanation – An independent contractor is one who is not under the complete direction and control of the employer.Principle 4 – If the servant acts negligently in the performance of his duties or displays reckless behaviour, thereby causing loss to the plaintiff, the master will be held liable.Principle 5 – If the servant does an act in defiance of an express prohibition, and the act is outside the course of employment, then the master cannot be held liable for harm arising out of such an act.Facts – Seashell Petroleum Co. has a large number of drivers employed under the Company, who drive petrol tankers and fill uppetrol in underground tanks at petrol bunks invarious cities. Reuben was one such driveremployed by Seashell. One day, while fillingup a tank with petrol, Reuben carelessly lightsa match, lights his cigarette, and throws theglowing splinter on the floor. A fire starts in thepetrol bunk, as a result, and severe damage iscaused to life and property. Who should beheld liable for this loss?a)Reuben should be held liable. He has beencareless about his duties.b)Seashell would be held liable, as they hademployed Reuben, and Reuben’s negligentact was committed in the course of hisemployment.c)Seashell would be liable only to a limitedextent, as the harm was directly the result ofReuben’s negligence.d)Neither Reuben nor Seashell will be heldliable. This was an act of God.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Principle 1 – The Principal is liable for all acts of the agent done in the course of employment.Principle 2 – When a servant commits a mistake while acting on behalf of his master, causing loss to the plaintiff thereby, the master will be liable for the same.Principle 3 – Generally, the employer is not liable for torts committed by an independent contractor working for him.Exception – The employer will be held liable for the acts of an independent contractor if he authorizes the doing of an illegal act.Explanation – An independent contractor is one who is not under the complete direction and control of the employer.Principle 4 – If the servant acts negligently in the performance of his duties or displays reckless behaviour, thereby causing loss to the plaintiff, the master will be held liable.Principle 5 – If the servant does an act in defiance of an express prohibition, and the act is outside the course of employment, then the master cannot be held liable for harm arising out of such an act.Facts – Seashell Petroleum Co. has a large number of drivers employed under the Company, who drive petrol tankers and fill uppetrol in underground tanks at petrol bunks invarious cities. Reuben was one such driveremployed by Seashell. One day, while fillingup a tank with petrol, Reuben carelessly lightsa match, lights his cigarette, and throws theglowing splinter on the floor. A fire starts in thepetrol bunk, as a result, and severe damage iscaused to life and property. Who should beheld liable for this loss?a)Reuben should be held liable. He has beencareless about his duties.b)Seashell would be held liable, as they hademployed Reuben, and Reuben’s negligentact was committed in the course of hisemployment.c)Seashell would be liable only to a limitedextent, as the harm was directly the result ofReuben’s negligence.d)Neither Reuben nor Seashell will be heldliable. This was an act of God.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Principle 1 – The Principal is liable for all acts of the agent done in the course of employment.Principle 2 – When a servant commits a mistake while acting on behalf of his master, causing loss to the plaintiff thereby, the master will be liable for the same.Principle 3 – Generally, the employer is not liable for torts committed by an independent contractor working for him.Exception – The employer will be held liable for the acts of an independent contractor if he authorizes the doing of an illegal act.Explanation – An independent contractor is one who is not under the complete direction and control of the employer.Principle 4 – If the servant acts negligently in the performance of his duties or displays reckless behaviour, thereby causing loss to the plaintiff, the master will be held liable.Principle 5 – If the servant does an act in defiance of an express prohibition, and the act is outside the course of employment, then the master cannot be held liable for harm arising out of such an act.Facts – Seashell Petroleum Co. has a large number of drivers employed under the Company, who drive petrol tankers and fill uppetrol in underground tanks at petrol bunks invarious cities. Reuben was one such driveremployed by Seashell. One day, while fillingup a tank with petrol, Reuben carelessly lightsa match, lights his cigarette, and throws theglowing splinter on the floor. A fire starts in thepetrol bunk, as a result, and severe damage iscaused to life and property. Who should beheld liable for this loss?a)Reuben should be held liable. He has beencareless about his duties.b)Seashell would be held liable, as they hademployed Reuben, and Reuben’s negligentact was committed in the course of hisemployment.c)Seashell would be liable only to a limitedextent, as the harm was directly the result ofReuben’s negligence.d)Neither Reuben nor Seashell will be heldliable. This was an act of God.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Top Courses for CLAT

Explore Courses

Suggested Free Tests

Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Follow Us
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup