A entrusted his car to B for plying it as a taxi. B employed C as a cleaner. B gave the taxi to C for taking a driving test and to obtain a driving licence. C while giving the driving test seriously injured D. D filed a case against A, the owner of the vehicle.a)A is liable because C was giving the driving test for the licence of Ab)A is liable because the accident happened during the course of employment.c)A is not liable as he had neither permitted nor authorised C to drive the car.d)A is liable because B was acting as his agent in giving the vehicle to C for taking it for driving test.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

EduRev

All Courses

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > A entrusted his car to B for plying it as a t...

a)
A is liable because C was giving the driving test for the licence of A
b)
A is liable because the accident happened during the course of employment.
c)
A is not liable as he had neither permitted nor authorised C to drive the car.
d)
A is liable because B was acting as his agent in giving the vehicle to C for taking it for driving test.

Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Join for Free

Join for Free

Verified Answer

A entrusted his car to B for plying it as a taxi. B employed C as a cl...

Under the given scenario, the liability of A, the owner of the vehicle, needs to be determined. Let's analyze the situation and the legal principles involved:

Permissive Use: A entrusted his car to B for using it as a taxi. This implies that B had the permission or authority to use the vehicle for its intended purpose.
Course of Employment: B employed C as a cleaner, not a driver. However, B gave the taxi to C for the purpose of taking a driving test and obtaining a driving license. This could be considered as an act within the course of employment.
Agency Relationship: B, as the employer, can be considered as an agent of A, the owner of the vehicle, as B was entrusted with the responsibility of using the car as a taxi.
Liability of the Owner: Generally, the owner of a vehicle is liable for any accidents or damages caused by the driver of the vehicle during its use, as long as the driver was using the vehicle with the owner's permission or authorization.

Based on the above analysis, we can conclude that:

A is not liable because C was driving the car without the permission or authorization of A, the owner. A had entrusted the vehicle to B for use as a taxi, not for C to drive.
B may be held liable for the accident because it happened during the course of employment when B gave the vehicle to C for the driving test. However, this liability would be separate from the liability of A, the owner.
C, as the driver, may be held liable for the injuries caused to D as a result of the accident.
D, the injured party, may have a valid case against B, who acted as an agent of A, for giving the vehicle to C for the driving test. However, this does not make A, the owner, liable as there was no permission or authorization given to C to drive the car.

In conclusion, A is not liable for the accident caused by C during the driving test as A had neither permitted nor authorized C to drive the car.

View all questions of this test

Most Upvoted Answer

A entrusted his car to B for plying it as a taxi. B employed C as a cl...

Explanation:
The correct answer is option 'C': A is not liable as he had neither permitted nor authorised C to drive the car.

Reasoning:
To determine liability in this case, we need to analyze the relationships and responsibilities of the parties involved.

A (Car Owner):
A entrusted his car to B for use as a taxi. However, A did not give permission or authorize C to drive the car. A's responsibility ends with entrusting the vehicle to B.

B (Employer):
B was entrusted with the car by A and employed C as a cleaner. B then gave the taxi to C for the purpose of taking a driving test and obtaining a driving license. B, as an employer, has the responsibility to ensure that the employees are qualified and capable of performing their duties safely.

C (Employee):
C was employed by B as a cleaner and was given the taxi to take a driving test. While driving the vehicle during the test, C seriously injured D. C was not authorized by A to drive the car.

D (Injured Party):
D was seriously injured due to C's actions while driving the car during the test.

Analysis:
In this case, A cannot be held liable for the accident and injuries caused by C. A entrusted the car to B, who then gave it to C without A's permission or authorization. A did not have direct control over C's actions, and there was no employer-employee relationship between A and C. Therefore, A cannot be held responsible for C's negligence.

Conclusion:
Based on the analysis, option 'C' is the correct answer. A is not liable as he had neither permitted nor authorized C to drive the car.

Answered by Glance Learning Institute · View profile

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Direction: You have been given some passages followed by questions based on each 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 Englands 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 employerfor 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:1. 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;2. The tort will have been committed as a result of activity being taken by the employee on behalf of the employer;3. The employees activity is likely to be part of the business activity of the employer;4. 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 its akin to that between an employer and an employee."A is a servant in Bs house. He is employed exclusively for taking care of Bs sick father. His working hours arefrom 10 am to 8 pm. B works at a company as an insurance agent. Once, when he was sick home, he needed some papers delivered at the office. One day, at 6 pm, B asked A to do him a favour, take his car and deliver the papers to his office. A hits C, a pedestrian on the way to Bs office. C sues B for the injury caused to him through As negligent driving. Will B be vicariously liable?

View answer

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. A is a servant in B's house. He is employed exclusively for taking care of B's sick father. His working hours are from 10 am to 8 pm. B works at a company as an insurance agent. Once, when he was sick home, he needed some papers delivered at the office. One day, at 6 pm, B asked A to do him a favour, take his car and deliver the papers to his office. A hits C, a pedestrian on the way to B's office.C sues B for the injury caused to him through A's negligent driving. Will B be vicariously liable?

View answer

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.Modil works for Rohan as a forklift driver. Modil damages a customers car while hauling a big crate to the client loading zone. The aforementioned client had come to meet Rohan. Modil was performing the tasks assigned to him as part of his employment. The customer sued Modil in court. Make a choice based on how you interpret the passage.

View answer

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?

View answer

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.Numerous bus services are run by ABC Ltd. for its employees in Delhi. Without realizing it wasnt a bus from his own company, ABC Ltd. employee Raghu boarded a public bus, and shortly after, the bus was involved in an accident. Along with numerous other passengers, Raghu was hurt. He wants to sue ABC Ltd. and sue for damages. Will Raghu be successful?

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Crash Course for CLAT

CLAT Mock Test Series 2026

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

A entrusted his car to B for plying it as a taxi. B employed C as a cleaner. B gave the taxi to C for taking a driving test and to obtain a driving licence. C while giving the driving test seriously injured D. D filed a case against A, the owner of the vehicle.a)A is liable because C was giving the driving test for the licence of Ab)A is liable because the accident happened during the course of employment.c)A is not liable as he had neither permitted nor authorised C to drive the car.d)A is liable because B was acting as his agent in giving the vehicle to C for taking it for driving test.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
A entrusted his car to B for plying it as a taxi. B employed C as a cleaner. B gave the taxi to C for taking a driving test and to obtain a driving licence. C while giving the driving test seriously injured D. D filed a case against A, the owner of the vehicle.a)A is liable because C was giving the driving test for the licence of Ab)A is liable because the accident happened during the course of employment.c)A is not liable as he had neither permitted nor authorised C to drive the car.d)A is liable because B was acting as his agent in giving the vehicle to C for taking it for driving test.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about A entrusted his car to B for plying it as a taxi. B employed C as a cleaner. B gave the taxi to C for taking a driving test and to obtain a driving licence. C while giving the driving test seriously injured D. D filed a case against A, the owner of the vehicle.a)A is liable because C was giving the driving test for the licence of Ab)A is liable because the accident happened during the course of employment.c)A is not liable as he had neither permitted nor authorised C to drive the car.d)A is liable because B was acting as his agent in giving the vehicle to C for taking it for driving test.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for A entrusted his car to B for plying it as a taxi. B employed C as a cleaner. B gave the taxi to C for taking a driving test and to obtain a driving licence. C while giving the driving test seriously injured D. D filed a case against A, the owner of the vehicle.a)A is liable because C was giving the driving test for the licence of Ab)A is liable because the accident happened during the course of employment.c)A is not liable as he had neither permitted nor authorised C to drive the car.d)A is liable because B was acting as his agent in giving the vehicle to C for taking it for driving test.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for A entrusted his car to B for plying it as a taxi. B employed C as a cleaner. B gave the taxi to C for taking a driving test and to obtain a driving licence. C while giving the driving test seriously injured D. D filed a case against A, the owner of the vehicle.a)A is liable because C was giving the driving test for the licence of Ab)A is liable because the accident happened during the course of employment.c)A is not liable as he had neither permitted nor authorised C to drive the car.d)A is liable because B was acting as his agent in giving the vehicle to C for taking it for driving test.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 A entrusted his car to B for plying it as a taxi. B employed C as a cleaner. B gave the taxi to C for taking a driving test and to obtain a driving licence. C while giving the driving test seriously injured D. D filed a case against A, the owner of the vehicle.a)A is liable because C was giving the driving test for the licence of Ab)A is liable because the accident happened during the course of employment.c)A is not liable as he had neither permitted nor authorised C to drive the car.d)A is liable because B was acting as his agent in giving the vehicle to C for taking it for driving test.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of A entrusted his car to B for plying it as a taxi. B employed C as a cleaner. B gave the taxi to C for taking a driving test and to obtain a driving licence. C while giving the driving test seriously injured D. D filed a case against A, the owner of the vehicle.a)A is liable because C was giving the driving test for the licence of Ab)A is liable because the accident happened during the course of employment.c)A is not liable as he had neither permitted nor authorised C to drive the car.d)A is liable because B was acting as his agent in giving the vehicle to C for taking it for driving test.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for A entrusted his car to B for plying it as a taxi. B employed C as a cleaner. B gave the taxi to C for taking a driving test and to obtain a driving licence. C while giving the driving test seriously injured D. D filed a case against A, the owner of the vehicle.a)A is liable because C was giving the driving test for the licence of Ab)A is liable because the accident happened during the course of employment.c)A is not liable as he had neither permitted nor authorised C to drive the car.d)A is liable because B was acting as his agent in giving the vehicle to C for taking it for driving test.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of A entrusted his car to B for plying it as a taxi. B employed C as a cleaner. B gave the taxi to C for taking a driving test and to obtain a driving licence. C while giving the driving test seriously injured D. D filed a case against A, the owner of the vehicle.a)A is liable because C was giving the driving test for the licence of Ab)A is liable because the accident happened during the course of employment.c)A is not liable as he had neither permitted nor authorised C to drive the car.d)A is liable because B was acting as his agent in giving the vehicle to C for taking it for driving test.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice A entrusted his car to B for plying it as a taxi. B employed C as a cleaner. B gave the taxi to C for taking a driving test and to obtain a driving licence. C while giving the driving test seriously injured D. D filed a case against A, the owner of the vehicle.a)A is liable because C was giving the driving test for the licence of Ab)A is liable because the accident happened during the course of employment.c)A is not liable as he had neither permitted nor authorised C to drive the car.d)A is liable because B was acting as his agent in giving the vehicle to C for taking it for driving test.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam