Question

A owned a truck and he had hired B to drive it. On one of its trips, C flagged the truck down and asked to be dropped to a nearby city. B agreed to do so for a small amount of money. The truck met with an accident en route, in which C was badly injured. C sued in for damages.

• A. A will be liable since B did the act in the course of his employment
• B. A will be liable since he had not instructed B not to pick up passengers
• C. A will not be liable since taking passengers in a truck had no connection with his business
• D. A will not be liable because B was an experienced driver

Answer 1

Answer: (C)

A will not be liable since taking passengers in a truck had no connection with his business

• The principle of respondeat superior states that a master is vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of his servant which are undertaken within the scope of employment. The term 'scope of employment' has been explained in the case of Carter v Reynolds. The essential requirements of the term as given are:
  

(1) the work is of the kind the employee is entitled to perform.

(2) the wrongful act has occurred within the authorized time and space limits. (3) the wrongful act has been actuated atleast partially for the benefit of the master.

• In the given instance, all these three factors have been negated because B was not entitled to carry put pick and drop, B drove it to a nearby city outside the space limits of his work and he did it for money and not for the benefit of his master.