This article has been written by Mr. Satyam Singh, a student studying BBA LLB (H) from Netaji Subhas University, Jamshedpur. The author is a 3rd year law student.

Introduction

Vicarious liability is a legal concept that holds one party responsible for the actions of another party. Under vicarious liability, an employer or principal may be held liable for the actions of their employees or agents. This concept is often used in cases involving workplace accidents, sexual harassment, and other types of misconduct. In this article, we will explore the key principles of vicarious liability, including its definition, how it is applied in different contexts, and the factors that determine whether it applies in a given case. We will also examine some examples of vicarious liability cases to provide a clearer understanding of how this legal principle works in practice.

 

Vicarious liability requirements

Under vicarious liability, an employer or principal may be held responsible for the actions of their employees or agents if certain requirements are met. These requirements include:

Relation: There must be a relationship between the party being held liable (the employer or principal) and the person who committed the wrongful act (the employee or agent). This relationship can take many forms, including an employer-employee relationship, a principal-agent relationship, or a partnership.

Ratification: The wrongful act must be committed within the scope of the relationship between the parties. This means that the act must be done in the course of the employee’s or agent’s employment or with the authority of the principal. If the wrongful act is outside the scope of the relationship, the employer or principal cannot be held vicariously liable.

Course of Employment: The wrongful act must also be done in the course of the employee’s or agent’s employment or within the scope of their duties. This means that the act must be done while the employee or agent is carrying out their job responsibilities, or in furtherance of the employer’s or principal’s interests. If the wrongful act is done outside the course of employment, the employer or principal cannot be held vicariously liable.

It is important to note that each case is unique, and the requirements for establishing vicarious liability may vary depending on the specific circumstances involved. In general, however, the three requirements outlined above are the most commonly used criteria for determining whether an employer or principal can be held responsible for the wrongful acts of their employees or agents.

 

Why Vicarious Liability Exists

Vicarious liability exists for several reasons. Firstly, it serves as a deterrent to employers and principals who might otherwise be inclined to turn a blind eye to the actions of their employees or agents. By holding employers and principals responsible for the actions of those who work for them, it creates an incentive for them to take steps to prevent wrongful acts from occurring in the first place.

Secondly, vicarious liability provides a means of redress for individuals who have been harmed by the wrongful acts of others. Without this legal principle, it would be much more difficult for victims of wrongdoing to seek compensation, particularly in cases where the individual responsible for the harm does not have the financial means to pay.

Finally, vicarious liability helps to ensure that justice is served in cases where the individual responsible for the wrongful act is not identified or cannot be held accountable. In situations where an employee or agent commits a wrongful act, it may be difficult or impossible to hold that individual responsible. Vicarious liability allows victims to seek compensation from the employer or principal, who is in a better position to absorb the costs of the wrongdoing.

Overall, vicarious liability is an important legal principle that serves to promote accountability and responsibility in the workplace, while also providing a means of redress for victims of wrongful acts.

 

Why holding master liable

Holding a master (i.e., an employer or principal) liable in vicarious liability is based on the idea that the master has some level of control or authority over their employees or agents. As a result, they should be held responsible for any wrongful acts committed by those under their supervision.

There are several reasons why holding a master liable in vicarious liability is considered to be fair and just:

The master is in a better position to prevent wrongful acts: As an employer or principal, the master is in a position of authority over their employees or agents. They are in a better position to implement policies and procedures to prevent wrongful acts from occurring in the first place. By holding the master liable, it creates an incentive for them to take steps to prevent such acts from happening.

The master is in a better financial position to compensate victims: In many cases, the individual employee or agent responsible for the wrongful act may not have the financial means to compensate the victim. By holding the master liable, it ensures that the victim can receive appropriate compensation.

The master benefits from the actions of their employees or agents: When an employee or agent commits a wrongful act, they may be doing so in furtherance of the master’s interests. For example, an employee who is driving a company vehicle to perform a job-related task may cause an accident that results in harm to another person. In this case, the master may be held liable for the employee’s actions, as they were done in the course of employment and in furtherance of the master’s interests.

Overall, holding a master liable in vicarious liability is a way to ensure that those who have the power and authority to prevent wrongful acts are held accountable for the actions of those under their supervision. It also ensures that victims of such acts can receive appropriate compensation, even if the individual responsible for the harm is not able to provide it themselves.

 

Vicarious Liability in Criminal Law

In India, vicarious liability in criminal law is primarily governed by Section 149 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). These sections provide for the circumstances under which a person can be held criminally liable for the actions of another person.

Section 149 of the IPC deals with the liability of members of an unlawful assembly for the offences committed by any member of that assembly. According to this section, if an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly, every member of that assembly is deemed to have committed that offence, unless they can prove that they did not commit the offence and had no knowledge of it being committed. In other words, the law presumes that every member of an unlawful assembly is vicariously liable for the actions of their co-members.

Section 34 of the IPC deals with the liability of persons acting in furtherance of a common intention. According to this section, if two or more persons act together in furtherance of a common intention, and in doing so, commit an offence, then each of those persons is vicariously liable for the actions of the others. The key requirement for vicarious liability under this section is that the actions must be done in furtherance of a common intention.

Vicarious liability in criminal law is important because it helps to ensure that those who are involved in criminal activities are held accountable for their actions. It also serves as a deterrent to individuals who might be tempted to participate in criminal activities, as they know that they could be held liable for the actions of their co-accused. However, it is important to note that vicarious liability in criminal law is not absolute and is subject to certain exceptions and defenses, such as lack of knowledge, absence of common intention, and so on.

 

Employees’ Acts and State Liability

Under vicarious liability, an employer may be held liable for the criminal acts committed by its employees in the course of their employment. However, the liability of the employer is limited by certain conditions, such as the employee acting in the course of their employment and not deviating from their duties. Similarly, the state can also be held vicariously liable for the actions of its employees, such as police officers, if they act outside the scope of their authority or engage in misconduct while performing their duties.

In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidhyawati (AIR 1962 SC 933), the Supreme Court of India held that the state can be held vicariously liable for the actions of its employees if they commit a tortious act while acting in the course of their employment. The case involved an accident caused by a government-owned bus, which resulted in the death of a pedestrian. The court held that the state was vicariously liable for the negligence of the driver, who was acting in the course of his employment at the time of the accident.

Similarly, in the case of Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1965 SC 1039), the Supreme Court held that the state could be held vicariously liable for the actions of its employees, including police officers, who commit acts of violence or torture against individuals. The case involved the death of a man who was allegedly tortured by police officers while in custody. The court held that the state was liable for the actions of the police officers, who were acting in the course of their employment at the time of the incident.

These cases illustrate the importance of vicarious liability in holding both employers and the state accountable for the actions of their employees. However, it is important to ensure that this liability is applied fairly and in a manner that is consistent with the principles of justice and due process.

 

Corporate Liability for Criminal Acts

Corporate liability for criminal acts is an aspect of vicarious liability that holds corporations or companies responsible for the criminal acts of their employees or agents. Corporate liability can arise in cases where an employee or agent of a corporation commits a crime in the course of their employment or with the authority of the corporation.

In India, corporate liability for criminal acts is recognized under various laws and regulations. The Companies Act, 2013 imposes liability on companies for the acts of their directors and officers. Section 149 of the Act provides that all directors of a company shall be jointly and severally liable for the acts of the company, unless they can prove that the act was committed without their knowledge or that they had exercised due diligence to prevent the commission of the act.

Similarly, the Indian Penal Code (IPC) also provides for corporate liability for criminal acts committed by employees or agents. Section 141 of the IPC provides for the liability of companies for offenses committed by their officers or members in the course of business. However, for the company to be held liable, the offense must have been committed with the consent or connivance of a director or manager or must be attributed to their neglect.

Apart from statutory provisions, the Indian judiciary has also recognized the concept of corporate criminal liability. In the landmark case of Standard Chartered Bank v. Directorate of Enforcement (2016), the Delhi High Court held that a company can be held criminally liable for offenses committed by its employees if it can be proved that the employees acted with the intention of benefitting the company.

However, it is important to note that corporate liability for criminal acts is not absolute, and companies can defend themselves against such liability. Companies can argue that the act was committed without their knowledge or consent, or that they had taken reasonable steps to prevent the commission of the act. Companies can also argue that the act was committed by a rogue employee who acted outside the scope of their employment or authority.

Corporate liability for criminal acts is an important aspect of vicarious liability that holds companies accountable for the criminal acts of their employees or agents. It is essential to ensure that companies operate in a responsible and ethical manner, and that they are held accountable for any criminal conduct that may occur in the course of their business.

 

Licensee and his Liability

In the context of vicarious liability, a licensee is someone who has been given permission by the owner of a property to use or occupy the property for a certain purpose. A licensee may be held liable for the acts of a third party if the act was committed in the course of the licensee’s use of the property.

For instance, if a licensee is given permission to use a property for a certain purpose, and a third party commits a criminal act on the property during the licensee’s use, the licensee may be held vicariously liable for the criminal act.

However, the liability of a licensee is generally limited compared to that of an employer or a corporation. Licensees are typically held liable only if the act was committed during the course of their use of the property, and they did not take reasonable steps to prevent the act from occurring.

In India, the extent of a licensee’s liability in vicarious liability has been established in several case laws. In the case of Shyam Sunder Vs. State of Rajasthan (2011), the Supreme Court held that a licensee of a property could be held vicariously liable for the acts of third parties if they knew or ought to have known that the third party was likely to commit a criminal act.

However, the Court also observed that the liability of a licensee is not absolute, and the licensee can defend themselves against the liability by showing that they took reasonable steps to prevent the commission of the act.

A licensee may be held vicariously liable for the acts of a third party in certain circumstances. However, the liability of a licensee is generally limited compared to that of an employer or a corporation, and the licensee can defend themselves against the liability by showing that they took reasonable steps to prevent the commission of the act.

 

Conclusion

Vicarious liability is an important legal concept that serves to hold individuals and organizations accountable for the actions of others. It is particularly relevant in situations where the actual wrongdoer may not have the means to compensate the victim or where the individual or organization being held liable has greater financial resources to compensate the victim.

However, it is important to ensure that vicarious liability is applied fairly and in a manner that is consistent with the principles of justice and due process. This requires careful consideration of the circumstances of each case, including the nature of the relationship between the parties involved, the actions of the wrongdoer, and the extent to which the vicarious party can be held responsible for those actions.

Ultimately, the purpose of vicarious liability is to ensure that those who benefit from the actions of others also bear the responsibility for those actions, and that victims of wrongdoing are provided with a means of seeking redress for their losses.

 

Reference

State of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidhyawati (AIR 1962 SC 933)

Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1965 SC 1039)

https://lawcorner.in/vicarious-liability-in-ipc/#Vicarious_liability_requirements