LEGAL PRINCIPLE: A master is liable for those acts of his servant which are committed in the course of employment.

FACTUAL SITUATION: A travelling agency asked its driver to drop a customer at the Delhi University. After dropping the customer, when he was returning back to the office of agency, he found his girlfriend on the way who was waiting for a bus to her residence which is one kilometer away from the office of agency. The driver offered her the lift. On the way, the car met with an accident and the girl got severely injured. She now claims compensation from the agency.

DECIDE.

The girl will succeed as the driver was driving in the course of employment.

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

The girl will not succeed as the driver was not driving in the course of employment.

Right on! Give the BNAT exam to get a 100% scholarship for BYJUS courses

The girl will succeed on the basis of strict liability of the agency.

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

The girl will succeed as she took free lift from her boyfriend. She would rather be liable to pay the fare to the agency and be prosecuted.

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

Open in App

Solution

The correct option is B The girl will not succeed as the driver was not driving in the course of employment.
Vicarious liability can be defined as a legal doctrine that assigns liability for an injury to a person who did not cause the injury who has a particular relationship to the person who did act negligently. It can also be called as imputed negligence. This doctrine arises under the common law doctrine of agency, respondeat superior, the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate or, in a broader sense, the responsibility of any third party that had the "right, ability or duty to control" the activities of a violator. Hence, in the above situation, the girl will not succeed as the act was not committed in the course of employment.

Suggest Corrections

Similar questions

Q. PRINCIPLE: A Master is liable for the acts of his servant as long as he can control the working of his servant.

FACTUAL SITUATION: A owned a taxi agency. She had hired B to drive one of her cars. On 1st January, 2010, C called up A's taxi agency and asked for a car to drop him from his house to his place of work. On the way, because of the driver's negligence, the car hit a road divider and C was injured. He sued A for damages.

DECIDE.

Q. PRINCIPLE: A master is liable for the acts committed by his servant in the course of employment.

FACT: Sanjay is a driver working in Brookebond and Co. One day, the Manager asked him to drop a customer at the ariport and get back at the earliest. On his way back from the airport, he happened to see his fiance Ruhina waiting for a bus to go home. He offered to drop her at home, which happened to be close to his office. She got into the car and soon thereafter, the car somersaulted due to the negligence of Sanjay. Ruhina was thrown out of the car and suffered injuries. She seeks compensation from Brookebond and Co.

Q. LEGAL PRINCIPLE: The master/ principal is liable for all acts done by his duly appointed servant/agent for all acts done by him lawfully in the course of his employment.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A had an agency which used to lend carpenters to people on need basis. A deputed B to do some repair work in C's shed. While so doing, B lit up a cigarette and threw it as soon as he saw someone coming there. The cigarette remaining lit caused a fire and the she was reduced to ashes. C sued A and B. Decide.
DECISION :

Q. LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Employers/Principles are vicariously liable, under the respondent superior doctrine, for negligence acts or omissions by their employees/agents in the course of employment/agency. A servant/agent may be defined as any person employed by another to do work for him on the terms that he, the servant/agent, is to be subject to the control and directions of his employer/principal in respect of the manner in which his work is to be done.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A motor car was owned by and registered and insured in the name of A (wife) but was regarded by her and her husband (B) as "our car". B used it to go to work, and A for shopping at the weekends. B told A that if ever he was drunk and unfit to drive through, he would get a sober friend to drive him or else telephone her to come and fetch him. On the day in question the husband telephoned the wife after work and told her that he was going out with friends. He visited a number of public houses and had drinks. At some stage, he realised that he was unable to drive safely and asked a friend C, to drive. C drove them to other public houses. After the last visit, C offered the three friends (X,Y and Z) a lift and they got in, together with B who was in a soporific condition. C then proceeds, at his won suggestion, to drive in a direction away from the B's home to have a meal. On the way, due to C's negligent driving, an accident occurred in which both B and C were killed and the other friends got injured. X. Y and Z brought an action against the wife both in her personal capacity and as administrators of the husband's estate. Decide whether A is liable?
DECIDE.

Q. LEGAL PRINCIPLE: The master/principal is liable for all acts done by his daily appointed servant/agent for all acts done by him lawfully in the course of his employment.

FACTUAL SITUATION: A had an agency which used to lend carpenters to people on need basis. A deputed B to do some repair work in C's shed. While doing so, B lit up a cigarette and threw it as soon as he saw someone coming down there. The cigarette remaining lit caused a fire and the shed was reduced to ashes. C sued A and B.

Decide.

Join BYJU'S Learning Program