Skip to main content

VICARIOUS LIABILITY

 VICARIOUS LIABILITY

  • Introduction

Vicarious Liability is the obligation of a person for an act of another person because of the relationship between them. For: Saurav works as a driver for Gaurav, Gaurav sent Saurav to take Suryash, Gaurav's friend to the Airport. On their way, Saurav hits a person since he was driving a car rashly. In this circumstance, Gaurav was not present in the car while the car hit the person, but still, he would be held accountable for the accident caused by Saurav. This is due to vicarious liability.

So, vicarious liabilities only handle the situations where the person is obligated for some other person's actions. It is seen as an exception to the basic rule that the person is obligated for his acts only. Vicarious liability is established on the principle of 'qui facit per se per alium facit per se', which refers to 'He who does an act by another is deemed in law to do it by himself'.


  • Essentials of Vicarious Liability

The requirements of vicarious liability are:

1. There must be some kind of relation between the parties.

2. The wrongful act must be commissioned by the other person

3. The wrongful act must occur during the time of employment.


  • Vicarious Liability in Medical Care

For any wrongful done by the employee in any medical organization, the hospital or the doctor is vicariously liable for the injuries. The employees consist of all the nurses, physicians, technicians, administrative departments, lab assistants and other staff members.

Vicarious Liability promotes enhancing the conditions of the hospital as the hospital is responsible for all the staff. So, any medical institution or hospital must prioritize proper credentials or qualifications for the employees to do their jobs but this doesn't go for a healthcare provider who is the free contractor of the hospital.


For illustration, X had surgery at ABC hospital, and the doctor strange performed the surgery. The surgery went well but Doctor Strange left his ring inside X's stomach. Now, in this situation, Doctor Strange is accountable for negligence but X can sue both ABC hospital as well as Doctor Strange as the hospital is accountable for the acts of the doctors.


  • Types of Vicarious Liability

When a few men or woman is chargeable for damages as a result of the opposite man or woman due to the fact there has been sure control, ownership, or route concerned, then the legal responsibility is called vicarious legal responsibility. 


  • Principal Liability

When someone permits some other man or woman to apply his car to carry out a venture for the proprietor and whilst doing the venture, the man or woman reasons damages or harm via negligence, in this case, the proprietor is chargeable for the damages via vicarious legal responsibility. 

For example, A has the latest surgical treatment and became on whole mattress rest, he requested B to finish his coverage paintings via way of means of sending the papers to the company, A lends his vehicle to B, throughout the drive, B had a twist of fate due to recklessness, on this case, A is chargeable for B`s twist of fate. 

In some other state of affairs, after finishing A`s paintings B used his vehicle for her non-public use and met a twist of fate throughout the route of her paintings, in this example A isn't chargeable for B`s twist of fate. This indicates that the route of employment of the proprietor is necessary. 


  • Parental Liability

In any case, whilst an infant creates harm via way of means of taking benefit of the state of affairs created via way of means of their mother and father, the mother and father are chargeable for the damages. The conditions may be permitting an infant to drive or leaving a loaded weapon in an infant`s reach. In the shortage of parental supervision, the mother and father are vicariously chargeable for their infant`s negligence. 

For example, A is the mom of 10-year-vintage B, whilst acting the everyday chores she became now no longer capable of maintaining an eye fixed on B, and B broke the automobile of C. In this case, A is vicariously chargeable for B`s movements as B is the son of A and he or she has to maintain an eye fixed on B`s movements. 


  • Conclusion

Vicarious legal responsibility offers with simplest the one's instances whilst one man or woman is chargeable for the movements of some other man or woman. And the accountable man or woman has to be advanced to the opposite man or woman. The man or woman who commits incorrect has to be withinside the route of employment. The route of employment is critical for vicarious legal responsibility. 



 



Written By Parul Sharma
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more