Overview: Vicarious Liability | Law of Torts - CLAT PG PDF Download

Understanding Vicarious Liability

• Vicarious liability is a legal concept where one person is held responsible for the actions of another, typically in the context of an employer being liable for the actions of their employees. This principle allows the plaintiff to sue both the wrongdoer and their principal.
• According to legal scholar Salmond, while individuals are generally accountable only for their own actions, there are exceptional cases where the law imposes vicarious responsibility for the acts of others, regardless of the individual's own lack of blame.

Principles of Vicarious Liability

1. Qui facit per alium facit per se

• This legal maxim translates to "he who acts through another is deemed in law as doing it himself." It underlines the principle that a person is responsible for the actions of those they delegate to perform tasks on their behalf.
• The master's liability for the servant's actions is rooted in this principle. When a person entrusts another to carry out a set of tasks in their absence, they are accountable for the manner and circumstances in which those tasks are executed.

2. The principle of trust and accountability

• When a person delegates tasks to another, they trust the delegate to decide how and when to perform these tasks based on the prevailing circumstances.
• This trust implies that the person who delegates is responsible for any wrongdoings that occur either in the execution of the task or in the way the task is carried out under specific circumstances.

Doctrine of Vicarious Liability

Key Principles

• Respondeat Superior: This legal principle holds that an employer (master) is liable for the actions of an employee (servant) performed within the course of employment, regardless of whether the employer directed the actions or not.
• Modern View: The contemporary understanding of vicarious liability is based on public policy and expediency rather than strict adherence to traditional maxims. It emphasizes the importance of holding employers accountable for the actions of their employees to promote responsible business practices.

Modes of Vicarious Liability

• Liability by Ratification: This occurs when a defendant approves or ratifies a wrongful act or omission after it has been committed.
• Liability Arising Out of Special Relationship: This form of liability arises when a defendant is in a specific relationship with the wrongdoer that makes them accountable for the wrongdoer's actions, even if those actions were not explicitly authorized. The most common example of this is the relationship between a master and servant.

Liability Arising Out of Master and Servant Relationship

For a master to be held liable for the tort committed by his servant, the following conditions must be met:

• Servant: The tort must be committed by a person who is a servant in the eyes of the law.
• Course of Employment: The servant must have committed the tort while acting in the course of their employment.

Important Points

• The master is liable for the wrongful acts of the servant if they are committed during the course of employment.
• It is not necessary for the master to have given express instructions for the act to be considered as done in the course of employment.

Legal Presumption

• There is a legal presumption that all acts done by the servant in the course of their employment are done with the authority of the master. This means that the master is considered to have authorized the acts of the servant, even if there was no explicit permission given.

Joint Liability of Principal and Agent

• In cases where a tort is authorized by the principal and committed by the agent, both the principal and the agent are jointly and severally liable as joint wrongdoers. This means that both parties can be held responsible for the wrongful act.

Definition of Servant

A servant, in legal terms, is someone employed by another person (the master) to perform work under the master's control and direction. The relationship between master and servant is governed by a contract of service and involves certain key elements.

Key Ingredients of Master-Servant Relationship

• Master's Power of Selection: The master has the authority to choose and hire the servant.
• Payment of Wages: There is a system of remuneration, such as wages or salary, for the work done by the servant.
• Right to Control Work Method: The master has the right to dictate how the work should be performed.
• Right of Suspension or Dismissal: The master can suspend or terminate the servant's employment.

Distinction Between Servant and Independent Contractor

• Control and Direction: A servant operates under the control and direction of the employer, while an independent contractor works autonomously.
• Obligation: A servant is obligated to follow the employer's instructions, whereas an independent contractor has the freedom to determine how and when to complete the work.
• Binding Terms: A servant is bound by the employer's orders, while an independent contractor is bound by the terms of their contract.

Course of Employment

Main Incidents of Master's Liability

There are six principal ways in which a master becomes liable for the wrong done by servants in the course of their employment.

1. Wrong as a Consequence of Careful Execution

The wrong committed by the servant may be the natural consequence of something done by him with ordinary care in the execution of his master's specific orders. For instance, if a servant is instructed to deliver goods and, in the process, accidentally causes damage due to a foreseeable risk, the master may be held liable.

2. Negligence in Execution of Orders

If the servant is negligent in following the specific orders of the master, leading to a wrongful act, the master can be held responsible. For example, if a servant fails to secure a load properly as instructed, resulting in an accident, the master may be liable for the consequences.

3. Acts Beyond Authority but Within Scope

When a servant acts beyond the authority granted by the master but still within the general scope of employment, the master may be held liable. For instance, if a delivery driver takes a different route that is not authorized but still within the job's scope, and an accident occurs, the master may be responsible.

4. Unauthorized Acts for Master's Benefit

If a servant commits a wrongful act that is unauthorized but intended for the benefit of the master, the master may be liable. For example, if a servant takes an unauthorized action to expedite a task that ultimately benefits the master, and harm results, the master may bear responsibility.

5. Acts of Servants in a Similar Business

When a servant engages in acts similar to those typically performed in the master's business, even if not explicitly authorized, the master may be held liable. For instance, if a servant takes actions common in the industry while on duty, and these actions lead to a wrongful act, the master may be responsible.

6. Acts of Servants in a Similar Business

When a servant engages in acts similar to those typically performed in the master's business, even if not explicitly authorized, the master may be held liable. For instance, if a servant takes actions common in the industry while on duty, and these actions lead to a wrongful act, the master may be responsible.

Instances of Vicarious Liability

1. Vicarious Liability of the Government

In the case of Indian Insurance Corporation, Association Pool, Bombay v. Radhabai, the driver of a motor vehicle belonging to the Primary Health Centre of the State was required to transport ailing children. However, during the journey, the driver handed over control of the steering wheel to an unauthorized person. This action was deemed an unauthorized mode of carrying out the task assigned by the employer. Consequently, it was held that the Government, as the owner of the vehicle, was vicariously liable for the driver's negligence in allowing an unauthorized person to operate the vehicle.

2. Negligence of the Driver and Vicarious Liability

In the case of Baldeo Raj v. Deowati, a truck driver allowed the conductor to drive the vehicle while sitting beside him. When the conductor caused an accident with a rickshaw, resulting in the death of a rickshaw passenger, it was determined that the driver's negligence in permitting the conductor to drive was the direct cause of the accident. As a result, the master (employer) was held vicariously liable for the driver's breach of duty.

3. Excess or Mistaken Execution of Lawful Authority by Servant

When a servant exceeds or mistakenly executes lawful authority, two key aspects must be established:

• Firstly, it should be demonstrated that the servant intended to perform an act on behalf of the master that he was authorized to do.
• Secondly, it must be proved that if the act had been done properly, it would have been lawful.

4. Wilful Wrong by Servant on Behalf of Master

If a servant commits a reckless act within the course of employment, intending to serve the master's interests, the master will bear responsibility. Even if the act is considered a wilful wrong, as long as it is done on the master's behalf and with the intention of benefiting the master, the master is liable.

5. Fraudulent Acts of Servant

A master is also accountable for the fraudulent acts of his servants, regardless of whether the fraud benefits the servant personally. For instance, if a servant engages in fraudulent actions while performing their duties, the master can be held liable. It is not necessary for the servant's fraud to be for the master's benefit; the mere fact that the fraudulent act occurred during the course of employment makes the master responsible.

6. Acts of Servants in a Similar Business

• Similar Acts and Liability: When a servant engages in actions like those typically performed in the master's business, even if not explicitly authorized, the master may be held liable.
• Example Scenario: If a servant undertakes actions common in the industry while on duty, leading to a wrongful act, the master may bear responsibility.