Concept of Vicarious Liability and The Doctrine of Common Employment | Civil Law for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Introduction

• Vicarious liability is a legal concept where one person is held responsible for the wrongful actions of another person. It is an exception to the general rule that individuals are liable for their own actions.
• It is based on the principle of 'qui faci per se per alium faci per se', which means 'he who does an act through another is deemed in law to do it himself'.
• Vicarious liability follows the doctrine of 'Respondeat Superior', which holds a superior responsible for the acts of their subordinate.
• One common form of vicarious liability is when an employer is held liable for the actions of their employee.
• Vicarious liability is imposed when there is a specific relationship between a master and servant, the wrongful act is related to this relationship, and the employee commits a tort within the scope of their employment.

Scope of Employment

• An employee's actions are considered within the scope of employment if they are the kind of actions they are employed to perform, occur within authorized time and limits, serve the master, and are not unexpectedly forceful.
• If an employee acts outside the scope of employment, the master or employer is typically not vicariously liable unless the master intended the action, was negligent, or the servant acted on behalf of the master.
• For example, if a service station employee negligently repairs a vehicle, the employer can be held vicariously liable as it falls within the course of employment. However, if the same employee commits a wrongful act unrelated to work, the employer is not typically liable.

Examples and Case Laws

• In the case of Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi & Ors vs. Ranjit Ginning & Pressing, 1977, the owner of a company was held vicariously liable for an accident caused by his employee's negligent driving during work duties.
• Conversely, in Sitaram Motilal Kalal vs. Santanuprasad Jaishankar Bhatt, 1966, the owner of a vehicle was not held liable for an accident caused by an individual driving the vehicle without implicit authorization.

The Doctrine of Common Employment

• The doctrine of common employment originated in English law as an exception to vicarious liability.
• It asserts that an employer is not responsible for injuries to one employee caused by the negligence of another employee.
• First applied in the case of Priestley vs. Fowler in 1837, where a master was not held liable for a butcher boy's injury due to a collapsed van caused by a fellow servant's negligence.
• Initially intended to limit a master's liability to actions of servants during employment, it later extended to any injury from ordinary job risks, leading to criticism.
• Arguments in favor suggested that employees willingly accept potential risks by joining a workforce.
• Legislation in England aimed to restrict this doctrine due to concerns for employee safety and welfare.
• Judicial decisions, like Wilsons & Clyde Coal Co. vs. English, required employers to ensure:
  • A competent staff of men.
  • A proper and safe working environment with suitable tools.
  • An effective work system with supervision.
• Over time, the defense of common employment was abolished by the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act in 1948.

Vicarious Liability in India

• Historical Context: During the British rule in India, the application of the doctrine of common employment was observed, influenced by English legal principles. However, its applicability in India was brief and uncertain.
• Legislative Action: In response to the uncertainties surrounding the doctrine, The Employer’s Liability Act of 1938 was enacted by the Indian Legislature. This act aimed to address and eliminate certain defenses related to worker injuries.
• Tortious Liability: The Employer’s Liability Act of 1938 in India covers the tortious liability of employers not specifically addressed in other laws. This legislation aimed to provide clarity and legal recourse in cases of employer negligence.
• Resolution of Ambiguities: Initially, there were ambiguities within the act, leading to legal uncertainties. However, these issues were gradually resolved through subsequent amendments to the legislation.
• Comparison with English Law: Both English and Indian legislations significantly limited the application of the doctrine of common employment. This shift marked a departure from earlier legal practices.

Conclusion

• In conclusion, it can be argued that the determination of the application of vicarious liability is more appropriately entrusted to the courts rather than the parliament. While certain statutes indicate the potential liability of one person for another's wrongful act, allowing the courts to discern the intention behind the act is a more judicious approach. This concept of vicarious liability is not confined to civil law alone; it extends to criminal law as well, demanding cases related to it to be resolved with thorough rationality and reliance on strong evidence.
• Even though this principle is not explicitly codified in any statute, it has been well-established through numerous legal precedents. The notion of holding an individual accountable for the actions of others may seem unconventional, and the preference might be for individuals to be responsible solely for their own actions. However, there are instances where it becomes essential to hold both the principal and subordinate (in the context of master and servant) liable for a wrongful act to safeguard the interests of both parties – the injured party and the wrongdoer.