Question Description
The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.The doctrine of vicarious liability can also be termed as the heart of the common law system of tort. It acts as being saving clause for the inferior, who acts for the wrongful order of their superior that ultimately leads to the wrongful act under tort law.Generally, it is the rule that the person is liable for the wrongful acts done by himself and no one else would incur the liability for his act. But under certain circumstances, one person can be held liable for the acts done by the other and thats where the doctrine of vicarious liability lies. Thus, for example, where the wrongful act was done by B who was at that time working under A, then, in that condition, A would be held liable for the tortious liability as per this doctrine of vicarious liability. But to be held liable for this type of tort, it is necessary that there is a certain kind of relationship between the two and the act done should be in a certain way related to that relationship. There is certain scope of employment under which an employer could be held liable. Scope of employment refers to the actions of an employee within the terms of his employment. This employment varies depending on the specific requirements of the job the employee is hired to do.When a person has got the authority to perform a certain act but he authorises it to someone else working under him, this relationship is known as a principal-agent relationship. When the principal authorises an agent to perform some tortious act, the liability for that will not be only of that person who has committed it but also of that who has authorised it. It is based on the principle "Qui facit per alium facit per se", which means "the act of an agent is the act of the principal". Liability of both the principal and the agent is joint and several.At times, the master or the employer may knowingly employ a clearly incompetent person. Hence, if any fault is committed, then the master will still be responsible. Master may consciously fail to provide proper means for the performance of the allotted work, if the servant does a work in such a manner due to which anybody faces inconvenience would make the master liable. Individuals performing work for someone else, though not considered legal employees but independent contractors, are not working within the scope of employment for the sake of vicarious liability.Q.Rushi hires a cab to the airport. The cab driver on the way negligently hits A, a pedestrian, who was crossing the road. Will Rushi be liable towards A for the injuries suffered?a)Rushi wont be held liable as the driver was driving the car, who had the complete control of it.b)Rushi will be held liable as there arose a contract on hiring the cab.c)Rushi will be held liable as she would be paying for the services(cab)availed by her. Hence, the master-servant relationship arises.d)Rushi wont be liable for the injuries caused by the driver as she hired the cab and no direct relation of master and servant was involved.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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 The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.The doctrine of vicarious liability can also be termed as the heart of the common law system of tort. It acts as being saving clause for the inferior, who acts for the wrongful order of their superior that ultimately leads to the wrongful act under tort law.Generally, it is the rule that the person is liable for the wrongful acts done by himself and no one else would incur the liability for his act. But under certain circumstances, one person can be held liable for the acts done by the other and thats where the doctrine of vicarious liability lies. Thus, for example, where the wrongful act was done by B who was at that time working under A, then, in that condition, A would be held liable for the tortious liability as per this doctrine of vicarious liability. But to be held liable for this type of tort, it is necessary that there is a certain kind of relationship between the two and the act done should be in a certain way related to that relationship. There is certain scope of employment under which an employer could be held liable. Scope of employment refers to the actions of an employee within the terms of his employment. This employment varies depending on the specific requirements of the job the employee is hired to do.When a person has got the authority to perform a certain act but he authorises it to someone else working under him, this relationship is known as a principal-agent relationship. When the principal authorises an agent to perform some tortious act, the liability for that will not be only of that person who has committed it but also of that who has authorised it. It is based on the principle "Qui facit per alium facit per se", which means "the act of an agent is the act of the principal". Liability of both the principal and the agent is joint and several.At times, the master or the employer may knowingly employ a clearly incompetent person. Hence, if any fault is committed, then the master will still be responsible. Master may consciously fail to provide proper means for the performance of the allotted work, if the servant does a work in such a manner due to which anybody faces inconvenience would make the master liable. Individuals performing work for someone else, though not considered legal employees but independent contractors, are not working within the scope of employment for the sake of vicarious liability.Q.Rushi hires a cab to the airport. The cab driver on the way negligently hits A, a pedestrian, who was crossing the road. Will Rushi be liable towards A for the injuries suffered?a)Rushi wont be held liable as the driver was driving the car, who had the complete control of it.b)Rushi will be held liable as there arose a contract on hiring the cab.c)Rushi will be held liable as she would be paying for the services(cab)availed by her. Hence, the master-servant relationship arises.d)Rushi wont be liable for the injuries caused by the driver as she hired the cab and no direct relation of master and servant was involved.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.The doctrine of vicarious liability can also be termed as the heart of the common law system of tort. It acts as being saving clause for the inferior, who acts for the wrongful order of their superior that ultimately leads to the wrongful act under tort law.Generally, it is the rule that the person is liable for the wrongful acts done by himself and no one else would incur the liability for his act. But under certain circumstances, one person can be held liable for the acts done by the other and thats where the doctrine of vicarious liability lies. Thus, for example, where the wrongful act was done by B who was at that time working under A, then, in that condition, A would be held liable for the tortious liability as per this doctrine of vicarious liability. But to be held liable for this type of tort, it is necessary that there is a certain kind of relationship between the two and the act done should be in a certain way related to that relationship. There is certain scope of employment under which an employer could be held liable. Scope of employment refers to the actions of an employee within the terms of his employment. This employment varies depending on the specific requirements of the job the employee is hired to do.When a person has got the authority to perform a certain act but he authorises it to someone else working under him, this relationship is known as a principal-agent relationship. When the principal authorises an agent to perform some tortious act, the liability for that will not be only of that person who has committed it but also of that who has authorised it. It is based on the principle "Qui facit per alium facit per se", which means "the act of an agent is the act of the principal". Liability of both the principal and the agent is joint and several.At times, the master or the employer may knowingly employ a clearly incompetent person. Hence, if any fault is committed, then the master will still be responsible. Master may consciously fail to provide proper means for the performance of the allotted work, if the servant does a work in such a manner due to which anybody faces inconvenience would make the master liable. Individuals performing work for someone else, though not considered legal employees but independent contractors, are not working within the scope of employment for the sake of vicarious liability.Q.Rushi hires a cab to the airport. The cab driver on the way negligently hits A, a pedestrian, who was crossing the road. Will Rushi be liable towards A for the injuries suffered?a)Rushi wont be held liable as the driver was driving the car, who had the complete control of it.b)Rushi will be held liable as there arose a contract on hiring the cab.c)Rushi will be held liable as she would be paying for the services(cab)availed by her. Hence, the master-servant relationship arises.d)Rushi wont be liable for the injuries caused by the driver as she hired the cab and no direct relation of master and servant was involved.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.The doctrine of vicarious liability can also be termed as the heart of the common law system of tort. It acts as being saving clause for the inferior, who acts for the wrongful order of their superior that ultimately leads to the wrongful act under tort law.Generally, it is the rule that the person is liable for the wrongful acts done by himself and no one else would incur the liability for his act. But under certain circumstances, one person can be held liable for the acts done by the other and thats where the doctrine of vicarious liability lies. Thus, for example, where the wrongful act was done by B who was at that time working under A, then, in that condition, A would be held liable for the tortious liability as per this doctrine of vicarious liability. But to be held liable for this type of tort, it is necessary that there is a certain kind of relationship between the two and the act done should be in a certain way related to that relationship. There is certain scope of employment under which an employer could be held liable. Scope of employment refers to the actions of an employee within the terms of his employment. This employment varies depending on the specific requirements of the job the employee is hired to do.When a person has got the authority to perform a certain act but he authorises it to someone else working under him, this relationship is known as a principal-agent relationship. When the principal authorises an agent to perform some tortious act, the liability for that will not be only of that person who has committed it but also of that who has authorised it. It is based on the principle "Qui facit per alium facit per se", which means "the act of an agent is the act of the principal". Liability of both the principal and the agent is joint and several.At times, the master or the employer may knowingly employ a clearly incompetent person. Hence, if any fault is committed, then the master will still be responsible. Master may consciously fail to provide proper means for the performance of the allotted work, if the servant does a work in such a manner due to which anybody faces inconvenience would make the master liable. Individuals performing work for someone else, though not considered legal employees but independent contractors, are not working within the scope of employment for the sake of vicarious liability.Q.Rushi hires a cab to the airport. The cab driver on the way negligently hits A, a pedestrian, who was crossing the road. Will Rushi be liable towards A for the injuries suffered?a)Rushi wont be held liable as the driver was driving the car, who had the complete control of it.b)Rushi will be held liable as there arose a contract on hiring the cab.c)Rushi will be held liable as she would be paying for the services(cab)availed by her. Hence, the master-servant relationship arises.d)Rushi wont be liable for the injuries caused by the driver as she hired the cab and no direct relation of master and servant was involved.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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 The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.The doctrine of vicarious liability can also be termed as the heart of the common law system of tort. It acts as being saving clause for the inferior, who acts for the wrongful order of their superior that ultimately leads to the wrongful act under tort law.Generally, it is the rule that the person is liable for the wrongful acts done by himself and no one else would incur the liability for his act. But under certain circumstances, one person can be held liable for the acts done by the other and thats where the doctrine of vicarious liability lies. Thus, for example, where the wrongful act was done by B who was at that time working under A, then, in that condition, A would be held liable for the tortious liability as per this doctrine of vicarious liability. But to be held liable for this type of tort, it is necessary that there is a certain kind of relationship between the two and the act done should be in a certain way related to that relationship. There is certain scope of employment under which an employer could be held liable. Scope of employment refers to the actions of an employee within the terms of his employment. This employment varies depending on the specific requirements of the job the employee is hired to do.When a person has got the authority to perform a certain act but he authorises it to someone else working under him, this relationship is known as a principal-agent relationship. When the principal authorises an agent to perform some tortious act, the liability for that will not be only of that person who has committed it but also of that who has authorised it. It is based on the principle "Qui facit per alium facit per se", which means "the act of an agent is the act of the principal". Liability of both the principal and the agent is joint and several.At times, the master or the employer may knowingly employ a clearly incompetent person. Hence, if any fault is committed, then the master will still be responsible. Master may consciously fail to provide proper means for the performance of the allotted work, if the servant does a work in such a manner due to which anybody faces inconvenience would make the master liable. Individuals performing work for someone else, though not considered legal employees but independent contractors, are not working within the scope of employment for the sake of vicarious liability.Q.Rushi hires a cab to the airport. The cab driver on the way negligently hits A, a pedestrian, who was crossing the road. Will Rushi be liable towards A for the injuries suffered?a)Rushi wont be held liable as the driver was driving the car, who had the complete control of it.b)Rushi will be held liable as there arose a contract on hiring the cab.c)Rushi will be held liable as she would be paying for the services(cab)availed by her. Hence, the master-servant relationship arises.d)Rushi wont be liable for the injuries caused by the driver as she hired the cab and no direct relation of master and servant was involved.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.The doctrine of vicarious liability can also be termed as the heart of the common law system of tort. It acts as being saving clause for the inferior, who acts for the wrongful order of their superior that ultimately leads to the wrongful act under tort law.Generally, it is the rule that the person is liable for the wrongful acts done by himself and no one else would incur the liability for his act. But under certain circumstances, one person can be held liable for the acts done by the other and thats where the doctrine of vicarious liability lies. Thus, for example, where the wrongful act was done by B who was at that time working under A, then, in that condition, A would be held liable for the tortious liability as per this doctrine of vicarious liability. But to be held liable for this type of tort, it is necessary that there is a certain kind of relationship between the two and the act done should be in a certain way related to that relationship. There is certain scope of employment under which an employer could be held liable. Scope of employment refers to the actions of an employee within the terms of his employment. This employment varies depending on the specific requirements of the job the employee is hired to do.When a person has got the authority to perform a certain act but he authorises it to someone else working under him, this relationship is known as a principal-agent relationship. When the principal authorises an agent to perform some tortious act, the liability for that will not be only of that person who has committed it but also of that who has authorised it. It is based on the principle "Qui facit per alium facit per se", which means "the act of an agent is the act of the principal". Liability of both the principal and the agent is joint and several.At times, the master or the employer may knowingly employ a clearly incompetent person. Hence, if any fault is committed, then the master will still be responsible. Master may consciously fail to provide proper means for the performance of the allotted work, if the servant does a work in such a manner due to which anybody faces inconvenience would make the master liable. Individuals performing work for someone else, though not considered legal employees but independent contractors, are not working within the scope of employment for the sake of vicarious liability.Q.Rushi hires a cab to the airport. The cab driver on the way negligently hits A, a pedestrian, who was crossing the road. Will Rushi be liable towards A for the injuries suffered?a)Rushi wont be held liable as the driver was driving the car, who had the complete control of it.b)Rushi will be held liable as there arose a contract on hiring the cab.c)Rushi will be held liable as she would be paying for the services(cab)availed by her. Hence, the master-servant relationship arises.d)Rushi wont be liable for the injuries caused by the driver as she hired the cab and no direct relation of master and servant was involved.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.The doctrine of vicarious liability can also be termed as the heart of the common law system of tort. It acts as being saving clause for the inferior, who acts for the wrongful order of their superior that ultimately leads to the wrongful act under tort law.Generally, it is the rule that the person is liable for the wrongful acts done by himself and no one else would incur the liability for his act. But under certain circumstances, one person can be held liable for the acts done by the other and thats where the doctrine of vicarious liability lies. Thus, for example, where the wrongful act was done by B who was at that time working under A, then, in that condition, A would be held liable for the tortious liability as per this doctrine of vicarious liability. But to be held liable for this type of tort, it is necessary that there is a certain kind of relationship between the two and the act done should be in a certain way related to that relationship. There is certain scope of employment under which an employer could be held liable. Scope of employment refers to the actions of an employee within the terms of his employment. This employment varies depending on the specific requirements of the job the employee is hired to do.When a person has got the authority to perform a certain act but he authorises it to someone else working under him, this relationship is known as a principal-agent relationship. When the principal authorises an agent to perform some tortious act, the liability for that will not be only of that person who has committed it but also of that who has authorised it. It is based on the principle "Qui facit per alium facit per se", which means "the act of an agent is the act of the principal". Liability of both the principal and the agent is joint and several.At times, the master or the employer may knowingly employ a clearly incompetent person. Hence, if any fault is committed, then the master will still be responsible. Master may consciously fail to provide proper means for the performance of the allotted work, if the servant does a work in such a manner due to which anybody faces inconvenience would make the master liable. Individuals performing work for someone else, though not considered legal employees but independent contractors, are not working within the scope of employment for the sake of vicarious liability.Q.Rushi hires a cab to the airport. The cab driver on the way negligently hits A, a pedestrian, who was crossing the road. Will Rushi be liable towards A for the injuries suffered?a)Rushi wont be held liable as the driver was driving the car, who had the complete control of it.b)Rushi will be held liable as there arose a contract on hiring the cab.c)Rushi will be held liable as she would be paying for the services(cab)availed by her. Hence, the master-servant relationship arises.d)Rushi wont be liable for the injuries caused by the driver as she hired the cab and no direct relation of master and servant was involved.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.The doctrine of vicarious liability can also be termed as the heart of the common law system of tort. It acts as being saving clause for the inferior, who acts for the wrongful order of their superior that ultimately leads to the wrongful act under tort law.Generally, it is the rule that the person is liable for the wrongful acts done by himself and no one else would incur the liability for his act. But under certain circumstances, one person can be held liable for the acts done by the other and thats where the doctrine of vicarious liability lies. Thus, for example, where the wrongful act was done by B who was at that time working under A, then, in that condition, A would be held liable for the tortious liability as per this doctrine of vicarious liability. But to be held liable for this type of tort, it is necessary that there is a certain kind of relationship between the two and the act done should be in a certain way related to that relationship. There is certain scope of employment under which an employer could be held liable. Scope of employment refers to the actions of an employee within the terms of his employment. This employment varies depending on the specific requirements of the job the employee is hired to do.When a person has got the authority to perform a certain act but he authorises it to someone else working under him, this relationship is known as a principal-agent relationship. When the principal authorises an agent to perform some tortious act, the liability for that will not be only of that person who has committed it but also of that who has authorised it. It is based on the principle "Qui facit per alium facit per se", which means "the act of an agent is the act of the principal". Liability of both the principal and the agent is joint and several.At times, the master or the employer may knowingly employ a clearly incompetent person. Hence, if any fault is committed, then the master will still be responsible. Master may consciously fail to provide proper means for the performance of the allotted work, if the servant does a work in such a manner due to which anybody faces inconvenience would make the master liable. Individuals performing work for someone else, though not considered legal employees but independent contractors, are not working within the scope of employment for the sake of vicarious liability.Q.Rushi hires a cab to the airport. The cab driver on the way negligently hits A, a pedestrian, who was crossing the road. Will Rushi be liable towards A for the injuries suffered?a)Rushi wont be held liable as the driver was driving the car, who had the complete control of it.b)Rushi will be held liable as there arose a contract on hiring the cab.c)Rushi will be held liable as she would be paying for the services(cab)availed by her. Hence, the master-servant relationship arises.d)Rushi wont be liable for the injuries caused by the driver as she hired the cab and no direct relation of master and servant was involved.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.The doctrine of vicarious liability can also be termed as the heart of the common law system of tort. It acts as being saving clause for the inferior, who acts for the wrongful order of their superior that ultimately leads to the wrongful act under tort law.Generally, it is the rule that the person is liable for the wrongful acts done by himself and no one else would incur the liability for his act. But under certain circumstances, one person can be held liable for the acts done by the other and thats where the doctrine of vicarious liability lies. Thus, for example, where the wrongful act was done by B who was at that time working under A, then, in that condition, A would be held liable for the tortious liability as per this doctrine of vicarious liability. But to be held liable for this type of tort, it is necessary that there is a certain kind of relationship between the two and the act done should be in a certain way related to that relationship. There is certain scope of employment under which an employer could be held liable. Scope of employment refers to the actions of an employee within the terms of his employment. This employment varies depending on the specific requirements of the job the employee is hired to do.When a person has got the authority to perform a certain act but he authorises it to someone else working under him, this relationship is known as a principal-agent relationship. When the principal authorises an agent to perform some tortious act, the liability for that will not be only of that person who has committed it but also of that who has authorised it. It is based on the principle "Qui facit per alium facit per se", which means "the act of an agent is the act of the principal". Liability of both the principal and the agent is joint and several.At times, the master or the employer may knowingly employ a clearly incompetent person. Hence, if any fault is committed, then the master will still be responsible. Master may consciously fail to provide proper means for the performance of the allotted work, if the servant does a work in such a manner due to which anybody faces inconvenience would make the master liable. Individuals performing work for someone else, though not considered legal employees but independent contractors, are not working within the scope of employment for the sake of vicarious liability.Q.Rushi hires a cab to the airport. The cab driver on the way negligently hits A, a pedestrian, who was crossing the road. Will Rushi be liable towards A for the injuries suffered?a)Rushi wont be held liable as the driver was driving the car, who had the complete control of it.b)Rushi will be held liable as there arose a contract on hiring the cab.c)Rushi will be held liable as she would be paying for the services(cab)availed by her. Hence, the master-servant relationship arises.d)Rushi wont be liable for the injuries caused by the driver as she hired the cab and no direct relation of master and servant was involved.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.