Settled Cases | Legal Reasoning for CLAT PDF Download

Settled Cases

Case Law: Ricketts vs Thomas Tilling Ltd.

• A bus driver asked the conductor to take over driving the bus.
• The conductor drove negligently and injured a pedestrian.
• The court held the employer liable for the negligent delegation of work by the driver.

Case Law: Headmistress Govt. Girls Hr. Sec. School vs Mahalakshmi

• A 9th standard student was injured after being instructed by the school’s Aya (caretaker) to fetch water from a distant tube-well.
• The incident caused the loss of her right eye.
• The court held the school authorities and the State liable for negligent delegation of authority by the Aya.

[Question: 1841188]

Non-Liability of the Master for the Acts of the Servant

1. When Loss/Damage Occurs Without Fault or Knowledge of the Master

Case Law: Beard vs London General Omnibus Co.

• A conductor negligently repositioned a bus, injuring a passerby, while the driver was absent.
• The court ruled that the bus company was not liable because the conductor was acting outside the scope of his employment.

2. When the Servant Acts Against Explicit Instructions

Case Law: Twine vs Beans Express Ltd.

• A van driver gave an unauthorized lift to a person who died in an accident caused by the driver's negligence.
• The court found the van owner not liable as the driver acted outside the scope of employment.

Case Law: Sitaram vs Shantanu Prasad

• A driver allowed a cleaner to use a car without the owner's permission.
• During a driving test, the cleaner injured a bystander.
• The court ruled that the owner was not liable since the cleaner's actions were unauthorized.

Case Law: Conway vs George Wimpey & Co. Ltd.

• A driver gave a lift to an unauthorized passenger, who was injured.
• The court held the employer not liable, as the driver’s actions were outside the scope of employment.

Effect of Express Prohibition

Case Law: Limpus vs London General Omnibus

• A bus driver caused an accident while overtaking another vehicle, despite explicit instructions not to race.
• The employer was held liable as the act was within the scope of employment.

3. Temporary Lend of Servant

Case Law: Mersey Docks & Harbour Board vs Coggins & Griffith Ltd.

• A crane driver, temporarily rented out by his employer, caused an accident.
• The original employer (harbour board) was held liable for the negligence.

Liability of the Employer for the Acts of an Independent Contractor

General Rule

Employers are generally not responsible for the wrongful acts (torts) of independent contractors.

Exceptions

1. Authorizing Illegal Acts: Employers can be held liable for illegal acts authorized by them.
2. Highway Dangers: Employers are liable for dangers caused by contractors on or near highways.
3. Strict Liability Cases: Employers are liable for torts under strict liability, even if committed by independent contractors.

Case Law Examples

Tarry vs Ashton

• A contractor negligently fixed a lamp outside a house, causing injury to a passerby.
• The court held the person hiring the contractor liable.

Rylands vs Fletcher

• A reservoir negligently built by a contractor caused flooding to a neighbour’s mine.
• The employer was held liable under strict liability.

[Question: 1841189]

Vicarious Liability of the State

Legal Framework

Article 300 of the Indian Constitution allows the Union and States to sue and be sued, but liability depends on whether the function is sovereign or non-sovereign.

Key Principles

• The State is liable for torts committed by its servants when exercising non-sovereign functions.
• The State is not liable for torts committed during the exercise of sovereign functions.

Case Law Examples

State of Rajasthan vs Vidyawati

• A government vehicle, driven negligently by a State employee, caused an accident.
• The court held the State liable as the act was non-sovereign in nature.

Kasturilal vs State of UP

• Police negligently kept custody of a jeweller's goods, which were later stolen by an officer.
• The court ruled the State not liable as the act occurred during a sovereign function.