Skip to main content

VICARIOUS LIABILITY

 


VICARIOUS LIABILITY

BY- swatee shukla 

In usual situations, a person is liable for his own wrongful acts and does not incur any liability for acts done by others. However, in certain cases, a person can be held liable for the acts done by others i.e. A can be held liable for a wrong committed by B. In order that A can be held liable, there should be a special relationship between A and B, and the wrongful act should be, in a certain way, connected with that relationship. Such liability of a person for an action or omission of another is called vicarious liability. When an agent commits a tort in the course of the performance of his duty as an agent, the principle can be held liable. The agent is also liable as he has committed the act himself. In essence, both the principal and agent can be held liable for the wrongful act. The plaintiff has the option to either sue the principal, the agent, or both of them. The same principle would be applicable when a wrongful act is done by a partner in an ordinary course of business of the firm. All the other partners would be vicariously liable for the same. The same rule applies to the relationship between a master and a servant. The master is vicariously liable for the wrongful act done by the servant in the course of employment. The liability of the master is in addition to that of the servant.  

In the case of a servant in the course of employment who does a wrongful act, then both the master and servant can be held liable for that act. The wrongful act of servant is deemed to be the act of master as well. The doctrine of the liability of the master for the act of his servant is based on two Latin terms. First, ‘Respondeat superior’ means ‘let the principle be liable’, and it puts the master in a position as though he had done the act himself. The logic behind this maxim is that the principal is in a better position to meet the claim as he is placed in a better position financially. The second Latin term is ‘Qui facit per alium facit per se’ this means ‘he who does an act through another is deemed in law to do it himself.

An agent is someone who acts on your behalf, i.e. an agent is someone who is authorized to do an act by another person and consequently, acts on his behalf. The authority is to do the act may be express r implied. The principal may not expressly ask his agent to do the wrongful act but when the agent acts in the ordinary course of the performance of his duties as an agent, the principal becomes liable for the same. 

The relationship between partners, in a partnership firm, is similar to that existing between a principal and agent. They are all considered as acting jointly for the purpose of business. For the tort committed by any partner in the ordinary course of business of the firm, all other partners are liable to the extent as the guilty partner. For this purpose, any one of the partners, some of them in any possible combination or even all of them together can be sued. That is, the partners are liable jointly or severely.  
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