Question Description
Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.Vicarious liability deals with situations in which an individual has committed a tortious act whilst acting on behalf of another. The primary situation in which the concept will arise is one in which someone is acting on behalf of an employer. An explanation for this phenomenon can be seen in Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam [2002] 3 WLR 1913 per Lord Nicholls:"The underlying legal policy is based on the recognition that carrying on a business enterprise necessarily involves risk to others. It involves the risk that others will be harmed by wrongful acts committed by the agents through whom the business is carried on. When those risks ripen into loss, it is just that the business should be responsible for compensating the person who has been wronged."Vicarious liability is a way in which any of the other torts can be attributed to a particular defendant, even if that defendant was not directly involved in the tort.Establishing vicarious liability requires three primary criteria to be met. There must be a relationship of control, a tortious act, and that act must be in the course of employment. The courts will first look for a sufficiently close relationship between tortfeasor and third party before it allows vicarious liability to be imparted. The most commonly encountered relationship is employer-employee and a number of tests to distinguish between employees and contractors-The first is the 'control test' involving who, exactly, is in control of the individual's work. The 'organisation' or 'integration test' distinguishes between people who sign 'contracts of service' and those who 'contract to provide services'. The 'economic reality test' is sometimes referred to as the 'multiple test' or the 'pragmatic test'. It involves examining the characteristics of the subject's work arrangements against a checklist of signs of conventional employment.Once a sufficiently close relationship has been established, it must be shown that the individual has committed a tortious act. This is because no secondary liability can be imposed on a third party before someone acting on their behalf has attracted primary liability. This means that whether vicarious liability is possible depends on whether liability exists for the relevant tort.An employer is not responsible for all of the acts one of their employees carries out. Instead, for vicarious liability to be possible, the tortious act must occur in the course of employment. If the relevant relationship is not employer employee, then the same principle applies but in a modified form. There are several categories of employment scenarios which can arise with regard to this element of vicarious liability.Q. A, an employee of GHC Company worked for a garage, which had petrol pumps outside and had a duty to assist in the movement of vehicles around the garage and also the drivers as they undertook tricky man oeuvres and while doing it negligently backed over B in a lorry. B sued the employer of A.a)A had not been acting with reasonable care and skill, and thus had breached an implied term of their contract.b)Employer should not be held vicariously liable, since they had prohibited such behaviour.c)A was engaged in duty of employer- moving vehicles around to ensure the smooth running of the garage. So employer must be held liable.d)Both (a) and (c)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 Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.Vicarious liability deals with situations in which an individual has committed a tortious act whilst acting on behalf of another. The primary situation in which the concept will arise is one in which someone is acting on behalf of an employer. An explanation for this phenomenon can be seen in Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam [2002] 3 WLR 1913 per Lord Nicholls:"The underlying legal policy is based on the recognition that carrying on a business enterprise necessarily involves risk to others. It involves the risk that others will be harmed by wrongful acts committed by the agents through whom the business is carried on. When those risks ripen into loss, it is just that the business should be responsible for compensating the person who has been wronged."Vicarious liability is a way in which any of the other torts can be attributed to a particular defendant, even if that defendant was not directly involved in the tort.Establishing vicarious liability requires three primary criteria to be met. There must be a relationship of control, a tortious act, and that act must be in the course of employment. The courts will first look for a sufficiently close relationship between tortfeasor and third party before it allows vicarious liability to be imparted. The most commonly encountered relationship is employer-employee and a number of tests to distinguish between employees and contractors-The first is the 'control test' involving who, exactly, is in control of the individual's work. The 'organisation' or 'integration test' distinguishes between people who sign 'contracts of service' and those who 'contract to provide services'. The 'economic reality test' is sometimes referred to as the 'multiple test' or the 'pragmatic test'. It involves examining the characteristics of the subject's work arrangements against a checklist of signs of conventional employment.Once a sufficiently close relationship has been established, it must be shown that the individual has committed a tortious act. This is because no secondary liability can be imposed on a third party before someone acting on their behalf has attracted primary liability. This means that whether vicarious liability is possible depends on whether liability exists for the relevant tort.An employer is not responsible for all of the acts one of their employees carries out. Instead, for vicarious liability to be possible, the tortious act must occur in the course of employment. If the relevant relationship is not employer employee, then the same principle applies but in a modified form. There are several categories of employment scenarios which can arise with regard to this element of vicarious liability.Q. A, an employee of GHC Company worked for a garage, which had petrol pumps outside and had a duty to assist in the movement of vehicles around the garage and also the drivers as they undertook tricky man oeuvres and while doing it negligently backed over B in a lorry. B sued the employer of A.a)A had not been acting with reasonable care and skill, and thus had breached an implied term of their contract.b)Employer should not be held vicariously liable, since they had prohibited such behaviour.c)A was engaged in duty of employer- moving vehicles around to ensure the smooth running of the garage. So employer must be held liable.d)Both (a) and (c)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 Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.Vicarious liability deals with situations in which an individual has committed a tortious act whilst acting on behalf of another. The primary situation in which the concept will arise is one in which someone is acting on behalf of an employer. An explanation for this phenomenon can be seen in Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam [2002] 3 WLR 1913 per Lord Nicholls:"The underlying legal policy is based on the recognition that carrying on a business enterprise necessarily involves risk to others. It involves the risk that others will be harmed by wrongful acts committed by the agents through whom the business is carried on. When those risks ripen into loss, it is just that the business should be responsible for compensating the person who has been wronged."Vicarious liability is a way in which any of the other torts can be attributed to a particular defendant, even if that defendant was not directly involved in the tort.Establishing vicarious liability requires three primary criteria to be met. There must be a relationship of control, a tortious act, and that act must be in the course of employment. The courts will first look for a sufficiently close relationship between tortfeasor and third party before it allows vicarious liability to be imparted. The most commonly encountered relationship is employer-employee and a number of tests to distinguish between employees and contractors-The first is the 'control test' involving who, exactly, is in control of the individual's work. The 'organisation' or 'integration test' distinguishes between people who sign 'contracts of service' and those who 'contract to provide services'. The 'economic reality test' is sometimes referred to as the 'multiple test' or the 'pragmatic test'. It involves examining the characteristics of the subject's work arrangements against a checklist of signs of conventional employment.Once a sufficiently close relationship has been established, it must be shown that the individual has committed a tortious act. This is because no secondary liability can be imposed on a third party before someone acting on their behalf has attracted primary liability. This means that whether vicarious liability is possible depends on whether liability exists for the relevant tort.An employer is not responsible for all of the acts one of their employees carries out. Instead, for vicarious liability to be possible, the tortious act must occur in the course of employment. If the relevant relationship is not employer employee, then the same principle applies but in a modified form. There are several categories of employment scenarios which can arise with regard to this element of vicarious liability.Q. A, an employee of GHC Company worked for a garage, which had petrol pumps outside and had a duty to assist in the movement of vehicles around the garage and also the drivers as they undertook tricky man oeuvres and while doing it negligently backed over B in a lorry. B sued the employer of A.a)A had not been acting with reasonable care and skill, and thus had breached an implied term of their contract.b)Employer should not be held vicariously liable, since they had prohibited such behaviour.c)A was engaged in duty of employer- moving vehicles around to ensure the smooth running of the garage. So employer must be held liable.d)Both (a) and (c)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.Vicarious liability deals with situations in which an individual has committed a tortious act whilst acting on behalf of another. The primary situation in which the concept will arise is one in which someone is acting on behalf of an employer. An explanation for this phenomenon can be seen in Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam [2002] 3 WLR 1913 per Lord Nicholls:"The underlying legal policy is based on the recognition that carrying on a business enterprise necessarily involves risk to others. It involves the risk that others will be harmed by wrongful acts committed by the agents through whom the business is carried on. When those risks ripen into loss, it is just that the business should be responsible for compensating the person who has been wronged."Vicarious liability is a way in which any of the other torts can be attributed to a particular defendant, even if that defendant was not directly involved in the tort.Establishing vicarious liability requires three primary criteria to be met. There must be a relationship of control, a tortious act, and that act must be in the course of employment. The courts will first look for a sufficiently close relationship between tortfeasor and third party before it allows vicarious liability to be imparted. The most commonly encountered relationship is employer-employee and a number of tests to distinguish between employees and contractors-The first is the 'control test' involving who, exactly, is in control of the individual's work. The 'organisation' or 'integration test' distinguishes between people who sign 'contracts of service' and those who 'contract to provide services'. The 'economic reality test' is sometimes referred to as the 'multiple test' or the 'pragmatic test'. It involves examining the characteristics of the subject's work arrangements against a checklist of signs of conventional employment.Once a sufficiently close relationship has been established, it must be shown that the individual has committed a tortious act. This is because no secondary liability can be imposed on a third party before someone acting on their behalf has attracted primary liability. This means that whether vicarious liability is possible depends on whether liability exists for the relevant tort.An employer is not responsible for all of the acts one of their employees carries out. Instead, for vicarious liability to be possible, the tortious act must occur in the course of employment. If the relevant relationship is not employer employee, then the same principle applies but in a modified form. There are several categories of employment scenarios which can arise with regard to this element of vicarious liability.Q. A, an employee of GHC Company worked for a garage, which had petrol pumps outside and had a duty to assist in the movement of vehicles around the garage and also the drivers as they undertook tricky man oeuvres and while doing it negligently backed over B in a lorry. B sued the employer of A.a)A had not been acting with reasonable care and skill, and thus had breached an implied term of their contract.b)Employer should not be held vicariously liable, since they had prohibited such behaviour.c)A was engaged in duty of employer- moving vehicles around to ensure the smooth running of the garage. So employer must be held liable.d)Both (a) and (c)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 Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.Vicarious liability deals with situations in which an individual has committed a tortious act whilst acting on behalf of another. The primary situation in which the concept will arise is one in which someone is acting on behalf of an employer. An explanation for this phenomenon can be seen in Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam [2002] 3 WLR 1913 per Lord Nicholls:"The underlying legal policy is based on the recognition that carrying on a business enterprise necessarily involves risk to others. It involves the risk that others will be harmed by wrongful acts committed by the agents through whom the business is carried on. When those risks ripen into loss, it is just that the business should be responsible for compensating the person who has been wronged."Vicarious liability is a way in which any of the other torts can be attributed to a particular defendant, even if that defendant was not directly involved in the tort.Establishing vicarious liability requires three primary criteria to be met. There must be a relationship of control, a tortious act, and that act must be in the course of employment. The courts will first look for a sufficiently close relationship between tortfeasor and third party before it allows vicarious liability to be imparted. The most commonly encountered relationship is employer-employee and a number of tests to distinguish between employees and contractors-The first is the 'control test' involving who, exactly, is in control of the individual's work. The 'organisation' or 'integration test' distinguishes between people who sign 'contracts of service' and those who 'contract to provide services'. The 'economic reality test' is sometimes referred to as the 'multiple test' or the 'pragmatic test'. It involves examining the characteristics of the subject's work arrangements against a checklist of signs of conventional employment.Once a sufficiently close relationship has been established, it must be shown that the individual has committed a tortious act. This is because no secondary liability can be imposed on a third party before someone acting on their behalf has attracted primary liability. This means that whether vicarious liability is possible depends on whether liability exists for the relevant tort.An employer is not responsible for all of the acts one of their employees carries out. Instead, for vicarious liability to be possible, the tortious act must occur in the course of employment. If the relevant relationship is not employer employee, then the same principle applies but in a modified form. There are several categories of employment scenarios which can arise with regard to this element of vicarious liability.Q. A, an employee of GHC Company worked for a garage, which had petrol pumps outside and had a duty to assist in the movement of vehicles around the garage and also the drivers as they undertook tricky man oeuvres and while doing it negligently backed over B in a lorry. B sued the employer of A.a)A had not been acting with reasonable care and skill, and thus had breached an implied term of their contract.b)Employer should not be held vicariously liable, since they had prohibited such behaviour.c)A was engaged in duty of employer- moving vehicles around to ensure the smooth running of the garage. So employer must be held liable.d)Both (a) and (c)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.Vicarious liability deals with situations in which an individual has committed a tortious act whilst acting on behalf of another. The primary situation in which the concept will arise is one in which someone is acting on behalf of an employer. An explanation for this phenomenon can be seen in Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam [2002] 3 WLR 1913 per Lord Nicholls:"The underlying legal policy is based on the recognition that carrying on a business enterprise necessarily involves risk to others. It involves the risk that others will be harmed by wrongful acts committed by the agents through whom the business is carried on. When those risks ripen into loss, it is just that the business should be responsible for compensating the person who has been wronged."Vicarious liability is a way in which any of the other torts can be attributed to a particular defendant, even if that defendant was not directly involved in the tort.Establishing vicarious liability requires three primary criteria to be met. There must be a relationship of control, a tortious act, and that act must be in the course of employment. The courts will first look for a sufficiently close relationship between tortfeasor and third party before it allows vicarious liability to be imparted. The most commonly encountered relationship is employer-employee and a number of tests to distinguish between employees and contractors-The first is the 'control test' involving who, exactly, is in control of the individual's work. The 'organisation' or 'integration test' distinguishes between people who sign 'contracts of service' and those who 'contract to provide services'. The 'economic reality test' is sometimes referred to as the 'multiple test' or the 'pragmatic test'. It involves examining the characteristics of the subject's work arrangements against a checklist of signs of conventional employment.Once a sufficiently close relationship has been established, it must be shown that the individual has committed a tortious act. This is because no secondary liability can be imposed on a third party before someone acting on their behalf has attracted primary liability. This means that whether vicarious liability is possible depends on whether liability exists for the relevant tort.An employer is not responsible for all of the acts one of their employees carries out. Instead, for vicarious liability to be possible, the tortious act must occur in the course of employment. If the relevant relationship is not employer employee, then the same principle applies but in a modified form. There are several categories of employment scenarios which can arise with regard to this element of vicarious liability.Q. A, an employee of GHC Company worked for a garage, which had petrol pumps outside and had a duty to assist in the movement of vehicles around the garage and also the drivers as they undertook tricky man oeuvres and while doing it negligently backed over B in a lorry. B sued the employer of A.a)A had not been acting with reasonable care and skill, and thus had breached an implied term of their contract.b)Employer should not be held vicariously liable, since they had prohibited such behaviour.c)A was engaged in duty of employer- moving vehicles around to ensure the smooth running of the garage. So employer must be held liable.d)Both (a) and (c)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.Vicarious liability deals with situations in which an individual has committed a tortious act whilst acting on behalf of another. The primary situation in which the concept will arise is one in which someone is acting on behalf of an employer. An explanation for this phenomenon can be seen in Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam [2002] 3 WLR 1913 per Lord Nicholls:"The underlying legal policy is based on the recognition that carrying on a business enterprise necessarily involves risk to others. It involves the risk that others will be harmed by wrongful acts committed by the agents through whom the business is carried on. When those risks ripen into loss, it is just that the business should be responsible for compensating the person who has been wronged."Vicarious liability is a way in which any of the other torts can be attributed to a particular defendant, even if that defendant was not directly involved in the tort.Establishing vicarious liability requires three primary criteria to be met. There must be a relationship of control, a tortious act, and that act must be in the course of employment. The courts will first look for a sufficiently close relationship between tortfeasor and third party before it allows vicarious liability to be imparted. The most commonly encountered relationship is employer-employee and a number of tests to distinguish between employees and contractors-The first is the 'control test' involving who, exactly, is in control of the individual's work. The 'organisation' or 'integration test' distinguishes between people who sign 'contracts of service' and those who 'contract to provide services'. The 'economic reality test' is sometimes referred to as the 'multiple test' or the 'pragmatic test'. It involves examining the characteristics of the subject's work arrangements against a checklist of signs of conventional employment.Once a sufficiently close relationship has been established, it must be shown that the individual has committed a tortious act. This is because no secondary liability can be imposed on a third party before someone acting on their behalf has attracted primary liability. This means that whether vicarious liability is possible depends on whether liability exists for the relevant tort.An employer is not responsible for all of the acts one of their employees carries out. Instead, for vicarious liability to be possible, the tortious act must occur in the course of employment. If the relevant relationship is not employer employee, then the same principle applies but in a modified form. There are several categories of employment scenarios which can arise with regard to this element of vicarious liability.Q. A, an employee of GHC Company worked for a garage, which had petrol pumps outside and had a duty to assist in the movement of vehicles around the garage and also the drivers as they undertook tricky man oeuvres and while doing it negligently backed over B in a lorry. B sued the employer of A.a)A had not been acting with reasonable care and skill, and thus had breached an implied term of their contract.b)Employer should not be held vicariously liable, since they had prohibited such behaviour.c)A was engaged in duty of employer- moving vehicles around to ensure the smooth running of the garage. So employer must be held liable.d)Both (a) and (c)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.Vicarious liability deals with situations in which an individual has committed a tortious act whilst acting on behalf of another. The primary situation in which the concept will arise is one in which someone is acting on behalf of an employer. An explanation for this phenomenon can be seen in Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam [2002] 3 WLR 1913 per Lord Nicholls:"The underlying legal policy is based on the recognition that carrying on a business enterprise necessarily involves risk to others. It involves the risk that others will be harmed by wrongful acts committed by the agents through whom the business is carried on. When those risks ripen into loss, it is just that the business should be responsible for compensating the person who has been wronged."Vicarious liability is a way in which any of the other torts can be attributed to a particular defendant, even if that defendant was not directly involved in the tort.Establishing vicarious liability requires three primary criteria to be met. There must be a relationship of control, a tortious act, and that act must be in the course of employment. The courts will first look for a sufficiently close relationship between tortfeasor and third party before it allows vicarious liability to be imparted. The most commonly encountered relationship is employer-employee and a number of tests to distinguish between employees and contractors-The first is the 'control test' involving who, exactly, is in control of the individual's work. The 'organisation' or 'integration test' distinguishes between people who sign 'contracts of service' and those who 'contract to provide services'. The 'economic reality test' is sometimes referred to as the 'multiple test' or the 'pragmatic test'. It involves examining the characteristics of the subject's work arrangements against a checklist of signs of conventional employment.Once a sufficiently close relationship has been established, it must be shown that the individual has committed a tortious act. This is because no secondary liability can be imposed on a third party before someone acting on their behalf has attracted primary liability. This means that whether vicarious liability is possible depends on whether liability exists for the relevant tort.An employer is not responsible for all of the acts one of their employees carries out. Instead, for vicarious liability to be possible, the tortious act must occur in the course of employment. If the relevant relationship is not employer employee, then the same principle applies but in a modified form. There are several categories of employment scenarios which can arise with regard to this element of vicarious liability.Q. A, an employee of GHC Company worked for a garage, which had petrol pumps outside and had a duty to assist in the movement of vehicles around the garage and also the drivers as they undertook tricky man oeuvres and while doing it negligently backed over B in a lorry. B sued the employer of A.a)A had not been acting with reasonable care and skill, and thus had breached an implied term of their contract.b)Employer should not be held vicariously liable, since they had prohibited such behaviour.c)A was engaged in duty of employer- moving vehicles around to ensure the smooth running of the garage. So employer must be held liable.d)Both (a) and (c)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: Read the passage and answer the following question.Vicarious liability deals with situations in which an individual has committed a tortious act whilst acting on behalf of another. The primary situation in which the concept will arise is one in which someone is acting on behalf of an employer. An explanation for this phenomenon can be seen in Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam [2002] 3 WLR 1913 per Lord Nicholls:"The underlying legal policy is based on the recognition that carrying on a business enterprise necessarily involves risk to others. It involves the risk that others will be harmed by wrongful acts committed by the agents through whom the business is carried on. When those risks ripen into loss, it is just that the business should be responsible for compensating the person who has been wronged."Vicarious liability is a way in which any of the other torts can be attributed to a particular defendant, even if that defendant was not directly involved in the tort.Establishing vicarious liability requires three primary criteria to be met. There must be a relationship of control, a tortious act, and that act must be in the course of employment. The courts will first look for a sufficiently close relationship between tortfeasor and third party before it allows vicarious liability to be imparted. The most commonly encountered relationship is employer-employee and a number of tests to distinguish between employees and contractors-The first is the 'control test' involving who, exactly, is in control of the individual's work. The 'organisation' or 'integration test' distinguishes between people who sign 'contracts of service' and those who 'contract to provide services'. The 'economic reality test' is sometimes referred to as the 'multiple test' or the 'pragmatic test'. It involves examining the characteristics of the subject's work arrangements against a checklist of signs of conventional employment.Once a sufficiently close relationship has been established, it must be shown that the individual has committed a tortious act. This is because no secondary liability can be imposed on a third party before someone acting on their behalf has attracted primary liability. This means that whether vicarious liability is possible depends on whether liability exists for the relevant tort.An employer is not responsible for all of the acts one of their employees carries out. Instead, for vicarious liability to be possible, the tortious act must occur in the course of employment. If the relevant relationship is not employer employee, then the same principle applies but in a modified form. There are several categories of employment scenarios which can arise with regard to this element of vicarious liability.Q. A, an employee of GHC Company worked for a garage, which had petrol pumps outside and had a duty to assist in the movement of vehicles around the garage and also the drivers as they undertook tricky man oeuvres and while doing it negligently backed over B in a lorry. B sued the employer of A.a)A had not been acting with reasonable care and skill, and thus had breached an implied term of their contract.b)Employer should not be held vicariously liable, since they had prohibited such behaviour.c)A was engaged in duty of employer- moving vehicles around to ensure the smooth running of the garage. So employer must be held liable.d)Both (a) and (c)Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.