Qui Facit Per Alium Facit Per Se | Law Optional Notes for UPSC PDF Download

Understanding "qui facit per alium facit per se"

• A person is generally responsible for their own actions, but in certain situations, the law can hold them accountable for someone else's actions, even if they are not directly at fault.
• The principle of "qui facit per alium facit per se" states that when one person acts through another, the law attributes the action to the person themselves.

Examples of Liability by Relation

• The responsibility of a principal for the actions of their agent: If an agent acts on behalf of a principal, the principal can be held liable for the agent's actions.
• The liability of spouses for each other's wrongdoing: In some cases, spouses can be held accountable for the actions of their partners.
• The liability of an employer for the misconduct of their employee: Employers can be held responsible for the wrongful actions of their employees in certain circumstances.

This concept of indirect responsibility is an exception to the general rule of individual accountability. It is important to note that if an agent or servant commits an act outside the scope of their duties or unrelated to their job, the principal may not be held responsible unless they explicitly approved or later ratified the act.

In such cases, the principal is considered as much a stranger to the act as any unrelated third party.

Understanding the Principle of Vicarious Liability

• The maxim "qui facit per alium facit per se" forms the basis of vicarious liability, where an individual or entity is held responsible for the wrongful actions of another party.
• This principle is crucial in legal contexts, especially in cases of wilful misconduct or torts committed by employees during the course of their duties.
• Employers, masters, or corporations can be held accountable for the actions of their employees under this principle.

Application in Partnerships

• In partnerships, the same principle applies, making both partners liable for each other's wrongful acts in the normal course of business.
• Partners in a partnership are termed joint tortfeasors and share joint and several liabilities.

Significance in the Law of Agency

• Within the law of agency, the maxim holds that actions authorized by an agent are legally considered as if they were performed by the principal.
• The concept of "respondent superior" emphasizes that the principal's liability is based on the master-servant relationship rather than the agency agreement itself.

Scope and Limitations

• The maxim applies to actions carried out by the agent within the apparent scope of their authority.
• However, it does not cover actions undertaken by an agent's sub-agent.
• The liability of the principal or master is determined by the unlawfulness of the act and the scope of employment or agency, rather than the act's necessity or purpose.

Government Liability in India

• According to Article 300 of the Indian Constitution, the Government of India or a State can be held accountable for the tortious actions of its employees.
• Court decisions have clarified that the government's liability in such cases is limited to acts of a sovereign nature.

By understanding the principle of vicarious liability and its applications in different contexts, we can appreciate how legal responsibility is assigned in various scenarios.

Understanding the Application of "Qui Facit Per Alium Facit Per Se" in Criminal Cases

• Legal Principle Overview: In the legal context, the maxim "qui facit per alium facit per se" primarily relates to civil liability and vicarious liability situations.
• Definition in Civil Cases: It suggests that a principal or employer can be held accountable for the actions of their agent or employee, as if they had performed the actions themselves.
• Application in Criminal Cases: This principle is not applicable in criminal law scenarios.
• Individual Criminal Responsibility: In criminal cases, the focus is on personal culpability and proving intent (mens rea) for the alleged offense.
• No Vicarious Liability in Criminal Law: Unlike civil law, where vicarious liability may apply, in criminal law, each individual is responsible for their own actions.
• Personal Involvement Required: Criminal liability hinges on an individual's direct involvement in the offense, rather than attributing another's actions to them based on a master-servant relationship.
• Example: For instance, in a case of theft, the person who committed the act will be held accountable based on their own actions and intent, irrespective of any employment or hierarchical relationships.

Key Reasons for Holding a Master Liable

• The historical background of the maxim "qui facit per alium facit per se" is one rationale behind holding a master responsible for the actions of their servant. In the past, a servant's identity was closely tied to that of their master, often due to hierarchical and legal constraints.
• One justification is rooted in the idea that the master, as the superior party in terms of financial resources, should bear the responsibility for any harm caused by their servant. This is based on the principle that those who can afford damages should provide a remedy.
• Holding the master accountable serves as an incentive for them to exercise caution and diligence in selecting and overseeing their servants. By being aware of their potential liability, masters are encouraged to choose employees wisely and ensure proper supervision.
• The concept of "qui facit per alium facit per se" underscores the importance of the master's role in maintaining standards of conduct within their business or household. It emphasizes the need for responsible decision-making and oversight.

Cases Related with qui facit per alium facit per se

H E Nasser Abdulla Hussain Vs Dy. City

• Facts: The case involved an individual engaged in training and racing of racehorses, receiving payments for facilities provided by others. Despite not personally performing much of the work, the individual incurred a loss in horse upkeep.
• Judgment: The court ruled in favor of the individual, stating that the necessary maintenance payments had been made, meeting the requirements of the Income Tax Act of 1995.
• Reasoning: The court applied the principle of "qui facit per alium facit per se," emphasizing the payments made by the individual and the actions performed within the scope of employment.

Deo Narain a Rai and Anr. Vs Kukur Bind and Ors

• Facts: The case involved a dispute over a mortgage deed where the mortgage owner, illiterate and unable to sign, had a representative sign on his behalf.
• Judgment: The Allahabad High Court ruled that the signature made by the representative was valid for forming a mortgage, overturning previous decrees.
• Reasoning: The court invoked "qui facit per alium facit per se," asserting that actions performed in the presence of another are considered as if done by the person themselves.

Conclusion

• The principle of "qui facit per alium facit per se" delves into the concept of liability by relation.
• It implies that an individual can be held accountable for the actions of another if there exists a specific relationship between them.
• This principle recognizes that even if a person did not directly commit the deed, they can still be held responsible due to their association with the responsible party.
• Understanding this principle is crucial for comprehending the legal ramifications of shared responsibility and the potential outcomes it may entail in various scenarios.