Skip to main content

Vicarious Liability by Mayurakshi Sarkar at Lexcliq

 Vicarious Liability

-Mayurakshi Sarkar

In most cases, a person is only liable for his own conduct; but, a person can be held liable for the wrongs of others in certain circumstances. This is known as "vicarious responsibility," which means that someone else is responsible for their actions. According to SALMOND, "In general, a person is liable exclusively for his actions, but there are extraordinary instances in which the law imposes on him vicarious liability for the acts of another, however blameless himself." Master accountability for the misdeeds of his servants is the most typical occurrence. In certain instances, both joint and multiple liability apply. It is possible for a plaintiff to sue both the actual wrong-doer and his or her employer.

Based on these two maxims, a vicarious liability law can be summarised as follows:

(a) Qui facit per alium facit per se : In legal parlance, the maxim states that "he who acts through another is seen as acting on his own." This notion was also the source of the master's accountability for the actions of his servants. The reason for this is that any individual who assigns someone to perform a certain type of task in his absence has to trust him to do so in accordance with the circumstances at hand. If an employee commits an act of dishonesty, the employer is responsible for it, even if it was done out of the employee's own free will, as long as it was done in the course of the employee's work and was not an act of personal whim.

(b) Respondeat superior: Maxim "let the master answer" is translated as "the superior must bear the responsibility or let the principal bear the responsibility," and it signifies that either the superior must bear the responsibility or he or she must bear it. In such instances, both the one who follows and the one who orders are held responsible. Legal presumption that all acts done by the servant in and around his master's business are done by his master's express or implied authority and are in actuality the act of the master is the basis for this rule. The master is put in the same position as though he had performed the act personally. A servant's actions are the responsibility of the master, even if there is no evidence of an express command or privity. A principal and his or her agent are both accountable as joint wrongdoers if the latter commits a crime approved by the former.

In these decisions, the Supreme Court ruled:

In Mohammad v. WM Morrison Supermarket, WM Morrison Supermarkets was involved in a case involving a gas station customer who was subjected to verbal and physical abuse at the hands of a Morrison grocery staff. He was identified as Mr. Khan. Mr Mohammad was taken by Mr Khan to the back of the petrol station, where he was beaten and kicked to the ground by Mr Khan. When his supervisor tries to stop Mr Khan, he ignores his instructions. At first, no one held him accountable. The Supreme Court, however, ruled that Morrison should be held accountable for Mr. Khan's activities since they were so closely tied to his employment.


For example, in the case of Cox v. Ministry of Justice, a prisoner dropped a sack of rice on the catering manager, inflicting injuries to his back. People wanted to know if his activities were sanctioned by the Ministry of Justice. The country's court ruled that MOJ is not vicariously liable because they do not have an employment relationship. The top court ruled that it didn't matter whether the prison wasn't engaged in any commercial operations, as long as he was receiving some type of compensation from the Ministry of Justice. Despite the fact that there is no financial reward. As a result, the Supreme Court held the Ministry of Justice accountable for the prisoner's actions.


Comments

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

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

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