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 up petrol in underground tanks at petrol bunks in various cities. Reuben was one such driver employed by Seashell. One day, while filling up a tank with petrol, Reuben carelessly lights a match, lights his cigarette, and throws the glowing splinter on the floor. A fire starts in the petrol bunk, as a result, and severe damage is caused to life and property. Who should be held liable for this loss?a)Reuben should be held liable. He has been careless about his duties.b)Seashell would be held liable, as they had employed Reuben, and Reuben’s negligent act was committed in the course of his employment.c)Seashell would be liable only to a limited extent, as the harm was directly the result of Reuben’s negligence.d)Neither Reuben nor Seashell will be held liable. 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 up petrol in underground tanks at petrol bunks in various cities. Reuben was one such driver employed by Seashell. One day, while filling up a tank with petrol, Reuben carelessly lights a match, lights his cigarette, and throws the glowing splinter on the floor. A fire starts in the petrol bunk, as a result, and severe damage is caused to life and property. Who should be held liable for this loss?a)Reuben should be held liable. He has been careless about his duties.b)Seashell would be held liable, as they had employed Reuben, and Reuben’s negligent act was committed in the course of his employment.c)Seashell would be liable only to a limited extent, as the harm was directly the result of Reuben’s negligence.d)Neither Reuben nor Seashell will be held liable. 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 up petrol in underground tanks at petrol bunks in various cities. Reuben was one such driver employed by Seashell. One day, while filling up a tank with petrol, Reuben carelessly lights a match, lights his cigarette, and throws the glowing splinter on the floor. A fire starts in the petrol bunk, as a result, and severe damage is caused to life and property. Who should be held liable for this loss?a)Reuben should be held liable. He has been careless about his duties.b)Seashell would be held liable, as they had employed Reuben, and Reuben’s negligent act was committed in the course of his employment.c)Seashell would be liable only to a limited extent, as the harm was directly the result of Reuben’s negligence.d)Neither Reuben nor Seashell will be held liable. 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 up petrol in underground tanks at petrol bunks in various cities. Reuben was one such driver employed by Seashell. One day, while filling up a tank with petrol, Reuben carelessly lights a match, lights his cigarette, and throws the glowing splinter on the floor. A fire starts in the petrol bunk, as a result, and severe damage is caused to life and property. Who should be held liable for this loss?a)Reuben should be held liable. He has been careless about his duties.b)Seashell would be held liable, as they had employed Reuben, and Reuben’s negligent act was committed in the course of his employment.c)Seashell would be liable only to a limited extent, as the harm was directly the result of Reuben’s negligence.d)Neither Reuben nor Seashell will be held liable. 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 up petrol in underground tanks at petrol bunks in various cities. Reuben was one such driver employed by Seashell. One day, while filling up a tank with petrol, Reuben carelessly lights a match, lights his cigarette, and throws the glowing splinter on the floor. A fire starts in the petrol bunk, as a result, and severe damage is caused to life and property. Who should be held liable for this loss?a)Reuben should be held liable. He has been careless about his duties.b)Seashell would be held liable, as they had employed Reuben, and Reuben’s negligent act was committed in the course of his employment.c)Seashell would be liable only to a limited extent, as the harm was directly the result of Reuben’s negligence.d)Neither Reuben nor Seashell will be held liable. 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 up petrol in underground tanks at petrol bunks in various cities. Reuben was one such driver employed by Seashell. One day, while filling up a tank with petrol, Reuben carelessly lights a match, lights his cigarette, and throws the glowing splinter on the floor. A fire starts in the petrol bunk, as a result, and severe damage is caused to life and property. Who should be held liable for this loss?a)Reuben should be held liable. He has been careless about his duties.b)Seashell would be held liable, as they had employed Reuben, and Reuben’s negligent act was committed in the course of his employment.c)Seashell would be liable only to a limited extent, as the harm was directly the result of Reuben’s negligence.d)Neither Reuben nor Seashell will be held liable. 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 up petrol in underground tanks at petrol bunks in various cities. Reuben was one such driver employed by Seashell. One day, while filling up a tank with petrol, Reuben carelessly lights a match, lights his cigarette, and throws the glowing splinter on the floor. A fire starts in the petrol bunk, as a result, and severe damage is caused to life and property. Who should be held liable for this loss?a)Reuben should be held liable. He has been careless about his duties.b)Seashell would be held liable, as they had employed Reuben, and Reuben’s negligent act was committed in the course of his employment.c)Seashell would be liable only to a limited extent, as the harm was directly the result of Reuben’s negligence.d)Neither Reuben nor Seashell will be held liable. 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 up petrol in underground tanks at petrol bunks in various cities. Reuben was one such driver employed by Seashell. One day, while filling up a tank with petrol, Reuben carelessly lights a match, lights his cigarette, and throws the glowing splinter on the floor. A fire starts in the petrol bunk, as a result, and severe damage is caused to life and property. Who should be held liable for this loss?a)Reuben should be held liable. He has been careless about his duties.b)Seashell would be held liable, as they had employed Reuben, and Reuben’s negligent act was committed in the course of his employment.c)Seashell would be liable only to a limited extent, as the harm was directly the result of Reuben’s negligence.d)Neither Reuben nor Seashell will be held liable. 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 up petrol in underground tanks at petrol bunks in various cities. Reuben was one such driver employed by Seashell. One day, while filling up a tank with petrol, Reuben carelessly lights a match, lights his cigarette, and throws the glowing splinter on the floor. A fire starts in the petrol bunk, as a result, and severe damage is caused to life and property. Who should be held liable for this loss?a)Reuben should be held liable. He has been careless about his duties.b)Seashell would be held liable, as they had employed Reuben, and Reuben’s negligent act was committed in the course of his employment.c)Seashell would be liable only to a limited extent, as the harm was directly the result of Reuben’s negligence.d)Neither Reuben nor Seashell will be held liable. This was an act of God.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.