UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES

PANJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH

LAW OF TORTS ASSIGNMENT

VICARIOUS LIABILITY

SUBMITTED TO – DR. RABIA GUND

PROFESSOR, UILS
SUBMITTED BY – YUVRAJ GARG
B.A. LL.B (H) – SECTION C
ROLL NO. – 168/21
SERIAL TOPICS PAGE NO.
NO.

1. Acknowledgement 3

2. Introduction 4

3. Liability by Ratification 4

4. Liability by Abetment 5

5. Liability by Relations 5-10

6. Conclusion 10

7. References 11
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Every project, however big or small it may be and however important it is, is successful
largely due to the efforts and dedication of a number of persons who have helped in whatever
way they can, by providing information related to it or by giving advice that is essential in the
completion of the project. I sincerely appreciate the assistance of these people and thank them
for their support and guidance that was instrumental in making this project a success. I,
Yuvraj Garg, a student of UILS, Panjab University, Chandigarh, am grateful to the
University for the confidence bestowed in me and entrusting my ability. I also appreciate and
extend my thanks to my project guide, Dr Rabia Gund, who mentored me while compiling
the project. Her insight has been extremely valuable in the completion of this project. I would
like to extend my last word of gratitude to everyone else involved in helping me with the
assignment.
INTRODUCTION
Generally speaking, one cannot be held responsible for the commission of torts by other.
However, In certain cases, liability of one person for the act of another person, may arise. In
order that the liability of A for the act done by B can arise. So, Vicarious Liability deals with
cases where one person is liable for the acts of others. In the field of Torts, it is considered
to be an exception to the general rule that a person is liable for his own acts only.

 It is based on two latin maxims

Respondent superior – It means that let the superior be responsible for the acts done by
servant

Qui facit per alium facit per se—It means that he who does an act through another, is
deemed in law to do it himself

 There are 3 ways by which one can liable for the acts of another

(1) Liability by Ratification

(2) Liability by Abetment

(3) Liability by Relationships such as of Master – Servant, Principal – Agent etc.

1. Liability by Ratification
 Where if a servant commits a tort without authorisation and principal subsequently
ratifies such act and gives his assent. Then Principal is bound by the act of servant and
liable for that.
 It is based on the maxim, ―Omnio Ratihabitio Retrorahitur Et Mandato Priori
Oequiparatur‖, which means that ‗every ratification of an act relates back and thereupon
becomes equivalent to a previous request‘.

For a valid ratification following conditions must be fulfilled:

 The wrongful act must have been done on behalf of the principal
 The principal ratifying the act must have full knowledge about the act committed. A void
act can‘t be ratified
2. Liability by Abetment
 In actions of wrong, those who abet the tortious acts are equally liable with those who
commit them. A person who procures the act of another is legally responsible for its
consequences:
1) if he knowingly and for his own benefits induces other person to commit an actionable
wrong, or
2) when the act induced is within the right of the immediate actor and, therefore, not
wrongful so far as the actor is concerned, but is detrimental to a third party and the
inducer procures his object by the use of illegal means directed against that third party.

3. Lability by Relations
Master and Servant
Employer and Independent Contractor
Principal and Agent
Firm and Partner
Company and Director
Guardian and Ward

Basis of the Liability of Master

 Why should a master be held liable for the torts committed by his servant in doing his
business even when his conduct is not blameworthy and he has used greatest possible
case in choosing the servant?

There are following reasons:

 The first reason for fixing liability on master is based on public policy and master is
supposed to be in better position to pay for loss through insurance or any other way for
the tortuous act of his servant because of his deeper pocket.
 As the employer makes a profit from the activities of his employees, he should also bear
any losses that those activities cause.
 To encourage accident prevention by giving an employer a financial interest in
encouraging his employees to take care for the safety of others
Master and Servant

Servant – A servant is a person employed by another to do work under the directions and
controls of his master. There is a Contract of Service between the master and the servant.

As a general rule, Master is liable for the torts of his servant. Their liability can be several as
well as joint depends on the plaintiff. To make the master liable for the torts committed by
the servant, following conditions should be satisfied:

 Tort is committed by the servant;

 The servant committed the tort while acting in the course of employment of his master

Various ways by which liability of Master arises

A. Act done in Course of Employment

A servant is said to be acting in the course of employment if:

 the wrongful act has been authorised by the master; or

 the mode in which the authorised act has been done is wrongful or unauthorised. It is the
general rule that master will be liable not merely for what he has authorised his servant to
do but also for the way in which he does that which he has authorised to do.

National Insurance Co., Kanpur v. Yogendra Nath

In this case, the owner of the car authorized his servants to look after his car and to keep the
same dusted while he was out of town for a long period. After few days, One of the servants
took the car to a petrol pump for getting the tyres inflated and for checking the oils etc. While
in the way, he negligently knocked down and injured two boys, who were going on a cycle.
The act of the servant in this case was held to be within the course of employment of his
master. And the master was held liable.

State Bank of India v. Shyama Devi, AlR 1978 SC 1263

The plaintiff who had a saving bank account with the Bank, handed over a cheque and cash to
an employee of the Bank who was a neighbour and friend of the plaintiff‘s husband with a
letter of instructions and pass book for being credited to her account. The employee
misappropriated the amount and made false entries in the pass book. The employee was not
in the charge of the savings bank counter and the cheque and cash were not handed over to
the counter clerk concerned.

The Supreme Court held that the Bank was not liable for the fraud of the employee. Because
the employee concerned here was acting outside the course of employment and the money
was not received by him in the normal course of business of the Bank.

B. Wrong due to Negligence of Servant

If a servant is not careful in the performance of his duties and his conduct causes any loss to a
third party, Still the master would be liable for the same.

In William vs. Jones, the defendant‘s servant, a carpenter, was required to do his work in the
plaintiff‘s shed. While doing his work, the carpenter lighted his cigarette negligently and the
same set fire to the plaintiff‘s shed. The court held that the master will be liable for the
negligence of the servant.

C. Wrong by excess or mistaken execution of a lawful authority

If a servant have a lawful authority to do some act on behalf of his master. And he makes an
excessive use of the authority causing loss to the plaintiff, the master will be liable for the
same.

In Bayley v Manchester S&L Railway (1873) LR 8 CP 148, a porter of a railway company

while working mistakenly believed that the plaintiff was in the wrong carriage even though
he was in the right one. The porter thus pulled the plaintiff as a result of which the plaintiff
sustained injuries. Here, the Court held the railway company vicariously liable for the act of
the porter because the mistaken act was done in the course of his employment.

D. Dishonest and Criminal Acts of servant

If the wrongful or dishonest act is committed for the benefit of the master and while doing his
business, the master is liable. But a master is not liable for a dishonest or criminal act of his
servant where the servant merely takes the opportunity afforded by his service to commit the
wrongful act.

In Cheshire v Bailey, the plaintiff hired the defendant‘s motor car and driver for samples to
be shown to his customers. While he was absent in the course of his business temporarily
from the car, the driver, acting in collusion with certain thieves, stole some silver-ware from
the car. Defendant i.e. the employer was not held liable because the driver in conspiring with
the thieves was not working in the course of his employment and he just takes the opportunity
afforded by his service.

Employer and Independent Contractor

 Who is an independent contractor?

An independent contractor is one who undertakes to produce a given result without being in
any way controlled as to the method by which he attains that result. There is Contract for
Service between the employer and the Independent Contractor.

 Generally speaking, an employer is not liable for the torts of his independent contractor.
But there are following exceptions: -
 Where the employer retains his control over the contractor and personally interferes and
makes himself a party to the act which occasion the damage;
 If an employer auhtorizes to do an illegal act or in cases of breach of statutory duty. In
such case the employer is responsible for the wrong done by the contractor or his
servants, and is liable to third persons who sustain damage from the wrong doing

In B. Govindarajulu vs. M.L.A. Govindaraja Mudaliar, after a motor lorry was entrusted
by its owner for repairs, while an employee of the repair workshop drove it, there was an
accident. It was held by the Madras High Court that for this accident, the owner of the lorry
was not liable vicariously, because the owner of the workshop was an independent contractor
and not the servant of the lorry owner.

In Devinder Singh vs. Mangal Singh, Devinder Singh entrusted his truck for repairs to a
workshop. While the truck was being driven by the owner of the workshop, there was an
accident which resulted in injuries to a cyclist, Mangal Singh. In an action by the injured
cyclist against the owner of the truck, it was held that the owner of the workshop was an
independent contractor and not the servant of the owner of the truck and therefore, the owner
of the truck could not be made vicariously liable for the negligence of the owner of the
workshop.
Principal and Agent

 Where one person authorizes another to commit a tort, the liability for that will be not
only of that person who has committed it but also of that who authorized it.
 It is based on the general principle ― Qui facit per alium facit per se‖ which means that
the act of the agent is the act of the principle.
 The authority to do the act may be express or implied. So, when an agent commits a
tortious act in the ordinary course of employment, then principle will be made liable for
the same.

In Lloyd v. Grace Smith & Co. (1912) A.C. 716, the plaintiff was a widow who owned
1000 pounds as dues on a mortgage and a cottage. She went to the manager of the defendant,
which was a firm of solicitors, and she asked for his advice to get richer. The manager told
her to sell her cottage and to call up the amount of mortgage. She authorized the manager to
sell the property and to collect her money but he absconded with the money. Thus, she sued
the defendant company. It was held that the defendant was liable for the fraudulent act of the
manager because even a fraudulent act is not authorized, the manager was authorized to take
her signature and thus it was within the course of employment.

Partners

 All the partners of a firm are liable for torts committed by a partner in the ordinary course
of the firm. The relation of partners inter se is that of principal and agent, and therefore
each partner is liable for the act of his fellows.

In Hamlyn v. Houston & CO., One of the two partners of the defendant‘s firm, acting within
the general scope of his authority as a partner, bribed the plaintiff‘s clerk and induced him to
make a breach of contract with his employer by disclosing secrets relating to his employer‘s
business. It was held that both the partners of the firm were made liable for the wrongful act
committed by only of the partner.
Company and Director

 Companies are liable for torts committed by their servants in the course of their
employment.
 Directors are personally responsible for any torts which they themselves may commit or
direct others to commit, although it may be for the benefit of their company.

Guardian and Wards

 Guardians are not personally liable for torts committed by minors under their charge.

CONCLUSION
Vicarious Liability deals with cases where one person is liable for the acts of others. In the
field of Torts it is considered to be an exception to the general rule that a person is liable for
his own acts only. It is based on the principle of qui facit per se per alium facit per se, which
means, ―He who does an act through another is deemed in law to do it himself‖. So in a case
of vicarious liability both the person at whose behest the act is done as well as the person who
does the act are liable. Thus, Employers are vicariously liable for the torts of their employees
that are committed during the course of employment. So a master is liable for the acts of his
servant if the act is done in the course of employment.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Dr Avtar Singh & Dr Harpreet Kaur: Introduction to the Law of Torts and Consumer
Protection, 4th ed
 RK Bangia, Law of Torts, 26th Edn (2021), Allahabad Law Agency

WEBLIOGRAPHY

 https://blog.ipleaders.in/vicarious-liability-case-master-servant-relationship-tort-law/