An Analysis of vicarious liability in India
The concept of vicarious responsibility is used to describe the connection between a master and a servant. It is built on the foundation of two Latin maxims. To begin, there is the principle of qui facit per se alium facit per se, which states that a person who does an act via another is assumed to have performed it himself in law, and the other is Respondent Superior, which states that a principle must account for the circumstances of his subordinate.
In general, a person is responsible for his or her own wrongdoings, but not for the wrongdoings of others. However, vicarious responsibility, or the accountability of one person for the actions of another, may occur in some circumstances. In order for A to be held liable for an act performed by B, it is necessary that there should be certain kind of relationship between A and B, and the wrongful act should be, in certain way, connected with that relationship. Thus, employers are vicariously liable for the tort which their employees commit during the course of employment.
Vicarious Liability Of The State: Article 300 of the Constitution of India describes vicarious liability of the state. Here, it states that if any public servant while in the course of his duty commits any sort of wrongful act, then the state will be liable for the wrongful act so committed.
In the celebrated case in the Supreme Court, State of Rajasthan v Vidyavati, the Apex Court had held the driver to be liable. The facts are that the district collector while she was travelling in her jeep, had met with an accident, and had died. Therefore, both the driver of the jeep and the state of Rajasthan were equally responsible, as the driver was in the course of his duty.
Vicarious liability refers to situations in which one person is held liable for the actions of another. And the person who is liable must be superior to the other. The wrongdoer must be acting in the course of his or her employment. For vicarious responsibility, the course of employment is critical.
The rules of agent responsibility can be read from the doctrine of the famous Quifasit itself, the Allium Fasit itself . Therefore, the captain is responsible for all negligence of the workers in employment. But if someone is an independent contractor, ie. H. A person who works for or does not work directly under someone is not responsible for the tort committed by that contractor.
It states that the agent must not commit any illegal activity that would hold the principal accountable because it is based on the Principal-Agent Regulations. Principals should also keep in mind that agents do not cheat. For that the employers conduct and make strict code of conduct so that this situation won`t arise often.
Other than this principle the vicarious liability of the state also talks about whether the government servants's wrongful act make the state liable or not. Some cases highlighted above proves this situation. State's liability for the acts or omissions of statutory authorities arises only in cases where the statutory authority acts outside his legal authority while purporting to act pursuant to the legal authority conferred upon him and the act or omission, which causes or results in damage to a person, is not within the ambit of the statutory protection, if any, contained in such enactments.
The present position in India is uncertain. In the First report on the Liability of State in Tort The India's law commission has recommended legislation prescribing State liability of England. On the basis of tat report the 'Government Bill' was introduced IN the Lok Sabha. That bill teels about the liability of the government towards the third party for the wrongdoing of the servant or employees. Unfortnately this law commission made long back did'nt came into effect still properly. It is hoped that it will paas soon without much delay.