LAW OF TORT Anuj Kumar Tiwari,

Assistant Professor at GIL

VICARIOUS LIABILITY
1. Principal and Agent- Ormrod v Crosville Motor Services Ltd.

2. Partners

3. Master and Servant-

Centuary Insurance Co. Ltd v. Northern Ireland RTB (1942)
Limpus v London General Omnibus Co. (1862)
VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF THE
STATES
Important Case: Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jai v State of U.P (AIR 1965 SC 1039)- It
stated that if the act of the Government servant was one, which could be considered
to be in delegation of sovereign powers the State would not be liable.
The Law Commission of India (First Report 1956) recommended four exceptions to
the rule of State Liability-
(i) Act of State
(ii) Judicial Acts
(iii) Acts done in the exercise of political functions of State e.g. foreign affairs, war
and peace, acts in emergency, etc.
(iv) Acts done in relation to defence forces.
: Sovereign Functions
1. Maintenance of defence force e.g. construction of a military read, distribution of
meals to the army personnel on duty, checking army personnel on duty (Baxi Amrik
Singh v. Union of India).
2. Maintenance of law and order e.g. if the plaintiff is injured while police personnel
are dispersing unlawful crowd or plaintiff’s loudspeaker set is damaged when police
makes a lathi charge to quell a riot (State of M.P v Chironji Lal, AIR 1981)
Non-sovereign functions:
1. Maintenance of dockyard (P. & O. Steam Navigation Co. case)
2. A truck belonging to the public works department carrying material for the
construction of a road bridge (Rup Ram v The Punjab State, AIR 1961).
3. A government jeep car being taken from the workshop to the collectors bunglow
for the Collector’s use (State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati AIR 1962 SC)
4. Union of India v. Savita Sharma (Carrying militaryJawan from Railway Station to
Army Headquarter)
Recent Trends:
- People’s Union for Democratic Rights v Police Commissioner of Delhi (1990), the
state was ordered to pay compensation to victims.
- Sabastian M. Hongray v. UOI (AIR 1986 SC 494), an exemplary damages were
awarded for disappearance of two persons in military custody.
- Bhim Singh v. State of J & K (AIR 1986 SC 494) and Rudul Shah v State of Bihar.
- M. Nagendra Rao & Co v State of AP (1994) 6 SCC 205.
TORTFEASOR
Joint Tortfeasor: When two or more persons unite to cause damage to another person,
then they will be liable as joint tortfeasors.

Independent Tortfeasor: Who act independently of each other but occur to produce
single damage.
In the case of Thompson v London County Council , it was observed that “the damage
is one but the cause of action which led to the damage are two”. Such tortfeasors are,
therefore, severally liable for the same damage, not jointly liable for the same tort.

Case: Brook v. Bool (1928), 2 KB 578.

LIABILITY OF JOINT
TORTFEASORS
1. Joint tortfeasors are jointly and severally liable
Harihar Prashad v Bholi Pershad (1907) 6 CLJ 383.

2. Release of one of the joint tortfeasors releases all others as well.

Khusro v N.A Guzder (AIR 1970 SC 1468)

3. Liability of the innocent joint tortfeasor

4. Rights of tortfeasors inter-se contribution and indemnity.
Merryweather case