Vicarious Liability deals with situations in which one party is responsible for others’ actions. Therefore, both the person at whose behest the act is performed and the person who performs the act are responsible in a case of vicarious liability. Employers are also vicariously responsible for the wrongdoing of their workers committed during the course of jobs. Popular examples of such a responsibility include the following[1]:
- “Liability of the principal for the tort of his agent;”
- “Liability of partners of each other’s tort;”
- “Liability of the master for the tort of his servant”
- “Liability of the State or Liability of the Administration”
(1) LIABILITY OF THE PRINCIPAL FOR THE TORT OF HIS AGENT
When an individual is authorized to commit a crime by another, the blame for the crime committed rests not only with the person who committed it, but also with the person who authorized it. By the principle of vicarious liability, the act of the agent is the act of the principal. For example, if X estate agent and Y is a seller or buyer and Y authorises X to buy a house for him, Y becomes the principal and X becomes the agent. If X dupes someone while performing his duty, Y will also be liable because certain things are ordinarily expected of X and there is no need for expressed consent.
In the case of Lloyd v. Grace, Smith & Co[2] the plaintiff owned two cottages and was not satisfied with the income he was making. He approached a solicitors firm for advice and the managing clerk advised them to sell it and made them sign a document executing a gift deed in his favour. The clerk sold and misappropriated the proceedings later on. It was held that solicitor firm was liable for the fraud committed by the clerk because it was done in the course of employment. In this case even though the firm were not directly involved in the fraud, the firm was held liable because the clerk who committed fraud was an employee of the company and the act was done during the course of employment.
(2) LIABILITY OF PARTNERS OF EACH OTHER’S TORT
A partner is a member in a partnership, an entity in which both the profits and losses of a business or other venture are shared between all members. Corporations favour partnerships because of a taxation structure that eliminates dividend taxes upon the profits of owners.”[3] Relationship between partners is similar to that of a principal and agent. All the partners will be liable for the torts committed by any single partner to the same extend as the guilty partner.
In “Hamlyn v. Houston & Co., one partner of a firm induced the clerk of the plaintiff to make a breach of contract with the plaintiff by sharing the company secrets of the plaintiff. The act was done by bribing the clerk and it was done within the general scope of the partners’ authority. It was held that both the partners are liable for the wrong committed by one partner.”[4] In this case even though the act was committed by a single partner, the liability fell on both the partners because the act done was related to the business and it was done to make illegal gain for the company.
(3) LIABILITY OF THE MASTER FOR THE TORT OF HIS SERVANT
The master is liable for the wrongful act of the servant, if the act is done in the course of employment. The wrongful act of the servant is considered to be the act of the master. The liability can arise even if the servant acts against the express instructions of the master. If a loss is caused to a third party because of the acts of the servant, the master will be held liable.
In the case of Devinder Singh v. Mangal Singh[5] , the proprietor of a workshop committed an accident while driving a car that was entrusted to the workshop for repairing. The workshop owner was held responsible for the loss because the car was on bail in the store owned by the owner. Although the driver was not allowed to drive the car by the owner, due to the master-servant arrangement that was in effect between the owner and the owner, he had to pay the damages.
(4) LIABILITY OF THE STATE OR LIABILITY OF THE ADMINISTRATION
The state or the government is liable for the torts committed by government employees. This is because state is treated just like another employer. In Roop Lal v. Union of India[6], military jawans lifted some firewood of the plaintiff for fuel and campfire and transported it in a military vehicle. The Union of India was held liable for the acts of the jawans because jawans are considered to be on duty 24×7 and the fact that they transported the firewood in a military vehicle proved that it was done in course of employment.
[1] AVATAR SINGH, LAW OF TORT 1-2(1d ed.,2012)
[2] Lloyd v. Grace, Smith & Co, (1912) A.C.716
[3] The Indian Contract Act, 1872
[4] Hamlyn v. Houston & co., (1903)1 KB 81
[5] Devinder Singh v. Mangal Singh., AIR 1981 P&H 53
[6] Roop Lal v. Union of India, AIR. 1972 J.& K.22
Aishwarya Says:
I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.
If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.
Do follow me on Facebook, Twitter Youtube and Instagram.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at adv.aishwaryasandeep@gmail.com
We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.
We are also running a series Inspirational Women from January 2021 to March 31,2021, featuring around 1000 stories about Indian Women, who changed the world. #choosetochallenge