Question

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.

• A. Brookebond and Co shall be liable, because Sanjay was in the course of employment at the time of accident.
• B. Brookebond and Co shall not be liable as Sanjay was not in the course of employment when he took Ruhina inside the car.
• C. Ruhina got into the car at her own risk, and therefore, she cannot sue anybody.
• D. None of the above.

Answer 1

Answer: (B)

Brookebond and Co shall not be liable as Sanjay was not in the course of employment when he took Ruhina inside the car.

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, since the act was not committed in the course of employment, Ruhina will not succeed.