Daily Passage Test for CLAT - May 6 MCQs & solutions Free

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 that's 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. Under what conditions can vicarious liability apply according to the passage?

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 that's 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. What does the phrase "Qui facit per alium facit per se" mean in the context of the passage?

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 that's 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 customer's 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.

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 that's 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 Bhavuk's account. Charu lost the cash some way. Which of the following, according to your interpretation of the paragraph, is true?

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 that's 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 wasn't 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?