Vicarious Liability

Generally, an individual is responsible for his own wrongful acts and one doesn't incur any liability for the acts done by others.

For example - In certain cases, however, vicarious liability, that's the liability a person for the act of another person, may arise so as that the liability of A for the act done by B can arise, it's necessary that there should be relationship between A and B, and therefore the wrongful act should be, in certain way, connected with that relationship.

 Principles of Vicarious Liability:

The doctrine of vicarious liability is based on principles of two maxims:

·       Qui Facit Per Alium Facit Intrinsically - This is often Latin Maxim which suggests, “The person who does an act through another, is deemed in law to try to himself.”

When an individual authorizes another individual to perform an act and while performing that act a tort is also committed, then the person is said to liable as if he committed the crime by himself or herself.

·       Respondent Superior - It means that the superior should be held responsible for the acts done by his subordinate.

Modes of Vicarious Liability:

The liability for others wrongful acts or omissions may arise in one of the following ways:

• Liability by ratification: Where the defendant has authorized or ratified the particular wrongful act or omission.
• Liability arising out of special relationship: Where the defendant stands to the wrong-doer in a relation which makes the former answerable for wrongs committed by the other, though not specifically authorized.

In order that the master could also be held responsible for the tort of his servant following conditions should be fulfilled:

· Tort is committed by the 'servant', and

·  The servant committed the tort while acting within the course of employment of his master.

Difference between Servant and Independent Contractor

• A servant is an agent who works under the supervision of his employer whereas an independent contractor is one who is his own master.
• A servant is a person employed to obey his master's directions whereas an independent contractor is a person engaged to do certain works, but to exercise his own discretion as to the mode and time of doing it!
• A servant is bound by the orders of his master but an independent contractor is bound by the terms of his contract.

Main Incidents of Master's Liability:

There are six principal ways during which a master becomes responsible for the incorrect done by servants within the course of their employment.

1.    1. The wrong committed by the servant may be the natural consequence of something done by him with ordinary care in execution of his master's specific orders.

Ø  In the case of Indian Insurance Corporation, Association Pool, Bombay vs. Radhabai, the driver of a motor vehicle belonging to the Primary Health Centre of the State was required to bring the ailing children by bus to the Primary Health Centre. The driver in the course of driving gave the control of the steering wheel to an unauthorized person. It was an unauthorized mode of doing the act authorized by the master. It was held that in such circumstances, the Government, viz., the owner of the vehicle is vicariously liable for the negligence of the driver in permitting unauthorized person to drive the vehicle.

 2.     Master will be liable for the negligence of his servant.

Ø  In the case of Baldeo Raj vs. Deowati the driving force of a Truck sat by the side of conductor and allowed the conductor to drive. The conductor caused an accident with a rickshaw as a result of which a rikshaw passenger died. It was held that the act of the driver in permitting the conductor to drive the vehicle at the relevant time was a breach of duty by the driver, and that was the direct explanation for the accident. For such negligence of the driving force his master was held vicariously liable.

 3.     Servant's wrong may consist in more than mistaken execution of lawful authority. Here two things have to be established.

Ø  Firstly, it must be shown that the servant intended to do on behalf of his master something which he was, in fact, authorized to do.

Ø  Secondly, it has to be protected that the act if done in a proper manner would have been lawful.

 4.   Wrong' may be a willful wrong but doing on the master's behalf and with the intention of serving his purpose.

Ø  If a servant performs some act which indicates recklessness in his conduct but which is within the course of his employment and calculated to serve the interest of the master, then the latter will be saddled with the responsibility for it.

 5.     Wrong may be due to the servant's fraudulent act.

Ø  A master is liable also for the wrongful acts of his servants done fraudulently. It is immaterial that the servant's fraud was for his own benefit. The master is liable if the servant was having the authority to do the act, that is, the act must be comprehended within his ostensible authority. The underlying principle is that on account of the fraudulent act of the servant, the master is deemed to extend a tacit invitation to others to enter into dealings or transactions with him.

6.    6.  Wrong may be due to the Servant's Criminal Act.

Ø  Though there is no such thing as vicarious liability in criminal proceedings, yet in a civil action, a master is liable in respect of the criminal acts of a servant, provided they are committed in the course of his employment

Conclusion

Under Vicarious Liability an individual are often held responsible for the torts committed by another person if that person shares a Master-Servant relation with him. The servant does the act on behalf of his master and thus the law of torts provides that any wrongful act which is completed within the course of employment by the servant is sure to make the master responsible for it.

—Nivethi Natarajan