Question Description
Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The doctrine of vicarious liability, generally, 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.[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from vicarious liability, blog by lawtimesjournal]Q.As he had an account with the same bank, Bhavuk gave some cash to his neighbor Charu, a cashier at XYZ Ltd. bank, at his home in order to have the money placed into Bhavuks account. Charu lost the cash some way. Which of the following, according to your interpretation of the paragraph, is true?a)Charu served as an employee of the bank, hence the bank would incur vicarious liability in this situation.b)The bank should not be considered liable because Charu did not engage in any wrongdoing, and the loss was not intentional.c)The bank will not face liability because Charu did not commit any wrongful actions while in the course of employment.d)None of the options provided above.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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 following passage and answer the question.The doctrine of vicarious liability, generally, 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.[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from vicarious liability, blog by lawtimesjournal]Q.As he had an account with the same bank, Bhavuk gave some cash to his neighbor Charu, a cashier at XYZ Ltd. bank, at his home in order to have the money placed into Bhavuks account. Charu lost the cash some way. Which of the following, according to your interpretation of the paragraph, is true?a)Charu served as an employee of the bank, hence the bank would incur vicarious liability in this situation.b)The bank should not be considered liable because Charu did not engage in any wrongdoing, and the loss was not intentional.c)The bank will not face liability because Charu did not commit any wrongful actions while in the course of employment.d)None of the options provided above.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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 following passage and answer the question.The doctrine of vicarious liability, generally, 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.[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from vicarious liability, blog by lawtimesjournal]Q.As he had an account with the same bank, Bhavuk gave some cash to his neighbor Charu, a cashier at XYZ Ltd. bank, at his home in order to have the money placed into Bhavuks account. Charu lost the cash some way. Which of the following, according to your interpretation of the paragraph, is true?a)Charu served as an employee of the bank, hence the bank would incur vicarious liability in this situation.b)The bank should not be considered liable because Charu did not engage in any wrongdoing, and the loss was not intentional.c)The bank will not face liability because Charu did not commit any wrongful actions while in the course of employment.d)None of the options provided above.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The doctrine of vicarious liability, generally, 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.[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from vicarious liability, blog by lawtimesjournal]Q.As he had an account with the same bank, Bhavuk gave some cash to his neighbor Charu, a cashier at XYZ Ltd. bank, at his home in order to have the money placed into Bhavuks account. Charu lost the cash some way. Which of the following, according to your interpretation of the paragraph, is true?a)Charu served as an employee of the bank, hence the bank would incur vicarious liability in this situation.b)The bank should not be considered liable because Charu did not engage in any wrongdoing, and the loss was not intentional.c)The bank will not face liability because Charu did not commit any wrongful actions while in the course of employment.d)None of the options provided above.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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 following passage and answer the question.The doctrine of vicarious liability, generally, 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.[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from vicarious liability, blog by lawtimesjournal]Q.As he had an account with the same bank, Bhavuk gave some cash to his neighbor Charu, a cashier at XYZ Ltd. bank, at his home in order to have the money placed into Bhavuks account. Charu lost the cash some way. Which of the following, according to your interpretation of the paragraph, is true?a)Charu served as an employee of the bank, hence the bank would incur vicarious liability in this situation.b)The bank should not be considered liable because Charu did not engage in any wrongdoing, and the loss was not intentional.c)The bank will not face liability because Charu did not commit any wrongful actions while in the course of employment.d)None of the options provided above.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The doctrine of vicarious liability, generally, 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.[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from vicarious liability, blog by lawtimesjournal]Q.As he had an account with the same bank, Bhavuk gave some cash to his neighbor Charu, a cashier at XYZ Ltd. bank, at his home in order to have the money placed into Bhavuks account. Charu lost the cash some way. Which of the following, according to your interpretation of the paragraph, is true?a)Charu served as an employee of the bank, hence the bank would incur vicarious liability in this situation.b)The bank should not be considered liable because Charu did not engage in any wrongdoing, and the loss was not intentional.c)The bank will not face liability because Charu did not commit any wrongful actions while in the course of employment.d)None of the options provided above.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The doctrine of vicarious liability, generally, 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.[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from vicarious liability, blog by lawtimesjournal]Q.As he had an account with the same bank, Bhavuk gave some cash to his neighbor Charu, a cashier at XYZ Ltd. bank, at his home in order to have the money placed into Bhavuks account. Charu lost the cash some way. Which of the following, according to your interpretation of the paragraph, is true?a)Charu served as an employee of the bank, hence the bank would incur vicarious liability in this situation.b)The bank should not be considered liable because Charu did not engage in any wrongdoing, and the loss was not intentional.c)The bank will not face liability because Charu did not commit any wrongful actions while in the course of employment.d)None of the options provided above.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The doctrine of vicarious liability, generally, 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.[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from vicarious liability, blog by lawtimesjournal]Q.As he had an account with the same bank, Bhavuk gave some cash to his neighbor Charu, a cashier at XYZ Ltd. bank, at his home in order to have the money placed into Bhavuks account. Charu lost the cash some way. Which of the following, according to your interpretation of the paragraph, is true?a)Charu served as an employee of the bank, hence the bank would incur vicarious liability in this situation.b)The bank should not be considered liable because Charu did not engage in any wrongdoing, and the loss was not intentional.c)The bank will not face liability because Charu did not commit any wrongful actions while in the course of employment.d)None of the options provided above.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: Read the following passage and answer the question.The doctrine of vicarious liability, generally, 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.[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from vicarious liability, blog by lawtimesjournal]Q.As he had an account with the same bank, Bhavuk gave some cash to his neighbor Charu, a cashier at XYZ Ltd. bank, at his home in order to have the money placed into Bhavuks account. Charu lost the cash some way. Which of the following, according to your interpretation of the paragraph, is true?a)Charu served as an employee of the bank, hence the bank would incur vicarious liability in this situation.b)The bank should not be considered liable because Charu did not engage in any wrongdoing, and the loss was not intentional.c)The bank will not face liability because Charu did not commit any wrongful actions while in the course of employment.d)None of the options provided above.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.