Question

PRINCIPLE: Master is liable for the wrongful acts committed by his servant, provided the acts are committed during the course of employment. However, the master is not liable if the wrongful act committed by his servant has no connection, whatsoever, with the servant's contract of employment.

FACTS: 'D' is a driver employed by 'M', who is the owner of a company. During the lunch time 'D' goes to a close by tea shop to have a cup of tea. There he ('D') picks up fight with the tea shop owner 'T', which resulted in some damage to his shop. 'T' wants to sue 'M' for claiming compensation for the damage caused by the fight.

Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

• A. 'M' will be liable because 'D' is his servant.
• B. Both 'M' and 'D' will be liable.
• C. 'M' will not be liable because the wrongful act (picking up fight) was not committed in the course of D's employment.
• D. 'M; will be liable albeit the wrongful act (picking up fight) was not committed in the course of D's employment.

Answer 1

The correct option is C 'M' will not be liable because the wrongful act (picking up fight) was not committed in the course of D's 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.

An act is deemed to be done in the course of employment if it is either

(a) wrongful act authorised by master.

(b) wrongful & unauthorised mode of doing some act authorised by master that is unauthorised in the way act is done by the servant.

In the above case M will not be liable as the wrongful act was not committed in the course of D's employment.