VICARIOUS

LIABILITY
Introduction

– Whenever a person commits an act which is unlawful, that

person is held liable for violating the law and thus he is
punished accordingly but under VL someone else is
punished for your deeds
 Relations in which vicarious liability of a person arises
– Master and Servant.
– Partners in a Partnership Firm.
– Principal and Agent.
– Company and its Directors.
– Owner and Independent Contractor.
– Guardian and Ward
 Master for torts by Servant

– Qui facit per alium facit per se: – It means that whenever a person gets
something done by another person then the person is viewed to be doing such
an act himself.
– Respondant Superior: – It means that the superior should be held responsible for
the acts done by his subordinate.
– These two maxims have played a significant role in the development of the law
of vicarious liability of the master.
Essentials of Vicarious liability in
Master-Servant Relationship

– 1. The servant has committed an act which

amounts to a tort under the direction of
the master.
– 2. Such a tortious act is committed by the
servant during the course of his
employment under the master.
Reasons for liability of the Master

– An act which is committed by the servant is considered to be done by

the master through him and therefore in the law of torts, it is
assumed that if any wrong is done by the servant, it has been
committed by his master indirectly and so the master is held liable for
these wrongs.
– The master is in a better financial position as compared to his servant
and thus in case of any loss caused by the tortious act of the servant,
the master is better suited to pay off the damages to the victim of the
act.
– When a servant does any act, the benefit from such an act is enjoyed
by the master and thus for the liability arising out of the servant’s act,
the master should also shoulder that liability.
– Traditional View – Control Test
– (1)Master’s power of selection of his servant;
(2) Payment of wages or other remunerations;
(3) Master’s right to control the method of doing the work, and
(4) Master’s right of suspension or dismissal.
– Modern View- control and course of employment
– Hire and Fire Rule

Difference between Servant and Independent contractor

In case of a servant there is a contract of service which means that along
with instructing what task should be done by the servant, the master also
has the right to instruct the manner in which that act has to be done and
thus the servant does not have autonomy in the performance of his duties.
Whereas in the case of an independent contractor there is a contract for
service which means that he can only be instructed as to what should be
done but how to do the work is left at his will and he does not take any
instructions from the master.

MASTER IS NOT LIABLE FOR Independent Contractor

– A master is also liable for an act of servant which he does
negligently or fails to take due care in carrying out.
– If a servant does any act willfully, recklessly or improperly
then the master will be held liable for any wrong arising
out of such act, if such an act is done in the course of
employment.
– A master can also be held liable for any fraudulent act of
the servant.
Principal and Agent

– Principal, in this case, is a person who

authorizes someone to act on his/her behalf.
While the other who is advised to act
accordingly is called as the agent.
– It is always stated that the principal is stated
liable for any act by his agent. It is important
that the act is authorized by the principal for
him to be held liable. The authority that
principal acts can be in the form of
implication or expressed.
Question

– A gives some amount of cash at his place to B. B here is the

neighbor of A and is also one of cashier in the bank. This is the
same bank where A deposits the money. Instead of doing the
needful, B misplaces the money. In this case, what correct legal
position will be given?
– A. As B is the employee of the bank, the bank will be held liable.
– B. The bank should not be liable as B did not do anything wrong.
– C. The bank will not be held liable as B did not do anything wrong
during the course of the employment.
– D. As B was the employee of the bank, the bank would be
vicariously liable in this case
– Gregory v. Piper(1829) 9 B & C 591, the defendant and plaintiff had
some disputes between them and the defendant, therefore, ordered his
servant to place rubbish across a pathway to prevent the plaintiff from
proceeding on that way and the servant took all care to ensure that no
part of it was touching the part of the plaintiff’s property but with the
passage of some time. The rubbish slid down and touched the walls of
the plaintiff and thus he sued for trespass.
– Whether the defendant was held liable despite his servant taking all
due care.
– H works as a house cleaner for K then there is a master and servant
relationship between them but, if H instead of cleaning the house
decides to cook food even though he has only been hired for cleaning
the house and due to his negligence causes a fire which also causes loss
to K’s neighbour L,
– Who is liable?
– a porter of a railway company while working mistakenly believed that
the plaintiff was in the wrong carriage even though he was in the right
one. The porter thus pulled the plaintiff as a result of which the plaintiff
sustained injuries.
– Can the railway company said to be vicariously liable for the act of the
porter?
– The husband of the petitioner went to a bank and while entering inside it, the
cash box of the bank was also being carried inside and as a result, the security
guard in a haste shot him and caused his death. The petitioner had claimed that
the bank was vicariously liable in the case because the security guard had done
such act in the course of employment but the bank had contended that it had
not authorized the guard to shoot.
– Can you make the Bank vicariously liable?
 – · Salsbury v Woodland, (1969) 3 All ER 863.
Mr. Woodland wanted a hawthorn tree cut down. The tree was 25 feet high and
stood 28 feet from the road, and running across the garden diagonally was a
pair of telephone wires. Mr. Woodland engaged Terence Coombe to cut the tree
down and he did so negligently. The tree hit the telephone wires which landed
in the roadway. The claimant intended to coil up the wires, but on seeing the
third defendant, Mr. Waugh, approaching too fast in his Morris Cooper, he flung
himself to the ground to avoid being hit by the wires (which would have
whipped around being struck by the car). The claimant had a tumour on his
spine and the falling to the ground dislodged this and caused damage to the
claimant.
– In ICI vs. Shatwell In this case, there were two
brothers who were employed by the defendant.
These brothers were carrying out an experiment for
the defendant and there was a shortage of the wire.
The other worker went to bring more wire but these
brothers went ahead and did the experiment with
the short wire later claimed damage from the
defendant on the basis of rough justice
– The plaintiff was a customer who on being intoxicated was
refused further drinks by the barman, who was employed
under the respondent and thus the plaintiff threw a glass at
him. The barman took a piece of the glass and threw it at
him which hit his eye.
– Can you make the respondent hotel liable ?
the plaintiff was a widow who owned 1000 pounds as dues on
a mortgage and a cottage. She went to the manager of the
defendant, which was a firm of solicitors, and she asked for
his advice to get richer. The manager told her to sell her
Is the
cottage and to call up the amount of mortgage. She company VL?
authorized the manager to sell the property and to collect her
money but he absconded with the money. Thus, she sued the
defendant company. 
–
The owner of a car asked his friend to drive his car. While
the car was being so driven by the friend, it collided with a
bus.
– The owner of the car can be held liable?
– Ms. Broom was employed as the helper of a beer and wine
house, of which her husband, Mr. Broom, was employed as
the manager. Ms. Broom fell down through a trap that her
husband was responsible for keeping closed, sustaining
injuries as a result. Ms. Broom sued for injuries due to the
negligence of her husband, but the courts held that, under
the statute, a husband cannot be held liable in tort against
his wife. She then sued the employer as vicariously
responsible for the negligence of her husband
 Vicarious Liability in Medical Care
– In a medical setting, a hospital or doctor can be held vicariously liable
for a claim based on the acts of one of its employees. This includes
the actions of its physicians, nurses, laboratory personnel, imaging
and other technicians, CNAs, administrative employees, and other
staff members.
– Due to the possibility of vicarious liability, hospitals, clinics, and
doctors are responsible for ensuring all of their employees have the
necessary qualifications and credentials needed to perform their jobs.
If a physician or other healthcare provider is considered an
independent contractor of a hospital, vicarious liability may not apply,
though laws on this vary by state.
 Partners Relationship

– The relationship which the partners have with each other is same as in between
principal and agent. For the tort committed by any partner of the company, all other
partners are liable. The liability of each partner is joint and several.
– Under the Partnership Act 1932 the most important
– Sec 4 deals with the “Definition of partner”
– Sec 6– Mode of determining the existence of partnership.
– Sec 13– Mutual right and liabilities.
– Section 25 –LIABILITY OF A PARTNER FOR ACTS OF THE FIRM.
–  “Every partner is liable jointly with all the other partners and also severally, for all acts
of the firm done while he is a partner”
Corporation and
Director

– The Company or the corporations are

responsible for the actions of the
company’s executives and directors
because they act on behalf of the
company and all the major decisions
about the company are taken by them.
The corporation which they are
representing is held vicariously liable for
the acts committed by them in the
course of employment and that affects
the position of the business or creates a
new relationship with a third party.
The vehicle owner and Permissive
owner

– A person (called a permissive owner) who is appointed by the

actual owner of a vehicle to take care of his vehicle or use it for a
particular purpose, for a temporary period of time, commits any
act which resulted in a loss to any third party, would render the
actual owner vicariously liable for the actions of the permissive
owner.
– Example- Ninni borrowed her father’s car to go to her friend’s
house. She was driving negligently while going there and injured
a pedestrian. When the case was brought to court, Ninni’s father
had to pay compensation to the victim as he was the owner of
the car
guardian ward relationship

– Mostly , guardians are lible for thrie ward’s actions..

– In the case of, Hagerty v Powers (1885), In Haggerty, an
eleven-year-old boy shot and injured another child. The
plaintiff pleaded that the father “let his minor child suffer
the loss of a pistol” by negligence and carelessness to
handle the pistol. When a father himself, by his own
negligence afford his child an opportunity to commit a tort,
he is liable
– In the case of Bebee v. Sales, the father supplied an airgun to his son who
was 15 years of age. Even after so much of complaints of mischief caused
by the son, he allowed the gun to remain with the boy, who accidentally
wounded the plaintiff. For that the father held liable.