Question Description
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. Which of the following can be reasonably inferred from the passage?a)The defendant incurs liability as he must have employed the employee in a work that had a risk of tort being committed.b)The impugned act must always arise out of the work an employee was contracted for.c)The employer may be liable even if the impugned act did not form an integral part of the work as long as it was in the course of employment.d)A defendant has to be a party to the contract of employment.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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 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. Which of the following can be reasonably inferred from the passage?a)The defendant incurs liability as he must have employed the employee in a work that had a risk of tort being committed.b)The impugned act must always arise out of the work an employee was contracted for.c)The employer may be liable even if the impugned act did not form an integral part of the work as long as it was in the course of employment.d)A defendant has to be a party to the contract of employment.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for 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. Which of the following can be reasonably inferred from the passage?a)The defendant incurs liability as he must have employed the employee in a work that had a risk of tort being committed.b)The impugned act must always arise out of the work an employee was contracted for.c)The employer may be liable even if the impugned act did not form an integral part of the work as long as it was in the course of employment.d)A defendant has to be a party to the contract of employment.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for 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. Which of the following can be reasonably inferred from the passage?a)The defendant incurs liability as he must have employed the employee in a work that had a risk of tort being committed.b)The impugned act must always arise out of the work an employee was contracted for.c)The employer may be liable even if the impugned act did not form an integral part of the work as long as it was in the course of employment.d)A defendant has to be a party to the contract of employment.Correct answer is option 'A'. 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 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. Which of the following can be reasonably inferred from the passage?a)The defendant incurs liability as he must have employed the employee in a work that had a risk of tort being committed.b)The impugned act must always arise out of the work an employee was contracted for.c)The employer may be liable even if the impugned act did not form an integral part of the work as long as it was in the course of employment.d)A defendant has to be a party to the contract of employment.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of 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. Which of the following can be reasonably inferred from the passage?a)The defendant incurs liability as he must have employed the employee in a work that had a risk of tort being committed.b)The impugned act must always arise out of the work an employee was contracted for.c)The employer may be liable even if the impugned act did not form an integral part of the work as long as it was in the course of employment.d)A defendant has to be a party to the contract of employment.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for 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. Which of the following can be reasonably inferred from the passage?a)The defendant incurs liability as he must have employed the employee in a work that had a risk of tort being committed.b)The impugned act must always arise out of the work an employee was contracted for.c)The employer may be liable even if the impugned act did not form an integral part of the work as long as it was in the course of employment.d)A defendant has to be a party to the contract of employment.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of 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. Which of the following can be reasonably inferred from the passage?a)The defendant incurs liability as he must have employed the employee in a work that had a risk of tort being committed.b)The impugned act must always arise out of the work an employee was contracted for.c)The employer may be liable even if the impugned act did not form an integral part of the work as long as it was in the course of employment.d)A defendant has to be a party to the contract of employment.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice 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. Which of the following can be reasonably inferred from the passage?a)The defendant incurs liability as he must have employed the employee in a work that had a risk of tort being committed.b)The impugned act must always arise out of the work an employee was contracted for.c)The employer may be liable even if the impugned act did not form an integral part of the work as long as it was in the course of employment.d)A defendant has to be a party to the contract of employment.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.