MASTER SERVANT LIABILITY OR VICARIOUS LIBILITY
 
Normally no person is held responsible for the wrongs done by someone else. However, there are few instances wherein a person can be held liable for the conduct of another person. This liability is known as Vicarious Liability.
The following relationships are the best examples of Vicarious Liability:
 

1. Liability of the Principal for the act of his Agent

1. Liability of the Partners

1. Liability of the Master for the act of his Servant

 
Liability of the Principal for the act of his Agent When a principal authorizes his agent to perform any act, he becomes liable for the act of such agent provided the agent has conducted it in the course of performance of duties.
Examples-Test is who has consented for the act

• Insurance agents

• Employer when pays premium for insurance not agent

• Airlines Agents

• Financing companies

(Unit Trust Case; post office not an agent of Unit trust )
Liability of the Partners For the tort committed by a partner of a firm, in the normal course of business of that partnership, other partners are responsible to the same extent as that of the partner who is in fault. The liability thus arising will be joint and several.

• General terms of partnership deed make both liable

 
Liability of the Master for the act of his Servant The liability of the master for the act of his servant is based on the principle of ‘respondent superior’, which means ‘let the principal be liable’. This principle originates from the maxim ‘, Qui Facit per Alium Facit per se’ which means ‘he who does an act through another is deemed in law to do it himself’.
In tort, the wrongful act of the servant is thus deemed to be the act of the master. However, such wrongful act should be within the course of his master’s business and any act, which is not in the course of such business, will not make the master liable.
In tort, the wrongful act of the servant is thus deemed to be the act of the master. However, such wrongful act should be within the course of his master’s business and any act, which is not in the course of such business, will not make the master liable.
In tort, the wrongful act of the servant is thus deemed to be the act of the master. However, such wrongful act should be within the course of his master’s business and any act, which is not in the course of such business, will not make the master liable.
In tort, the wrongful act of the servant is thus deemed to be the act of the master. However, such wrongful act should be within the course of his master’s business and any act, which is not in the course of such business, will not make the master liable.
 
TEST OF MASTER SERVANT RELATIONSHIP IS
 
Contract of work meaning thereby EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT ,
Or
Contract for work means contract for certain works to be done by contractor ,hence the character of the person performing work is of a contractor and not of an employee  
Dixon J stated the following principles:
A tort is committed in the course of the performance of work for the benefit of another person, he cannot be vicariously responsible if the actual tort fear is not his servant and he has not directly authorized the doing of the act which amounts to a tort. The work, although done at his request and for his benefit, is considered as the independent function of the person who undertakes it The independent contractor carries out his work, not as a representative but as a principal.
Example: Cases of MARUTI UDYOG AND its DEALERS =RELATIONSHIP –Principle to Principle and not of agent though Manufacturer liable for manufacturing defects
 
 
 STRICT AND ABSOLUTE LIABILITY
Rules of Strict and Absolute Liability are based on the concept of ‘No fault liability’. At times a person may be held responsible for some wrong though there was no negligence or intention on his part to do such wrong.
This rule was laid down by the House of Lords in Rylands v Fletcher and hence it is also commonly termed as the
 
Rule in Rylands v Fletcher.




In the case of Rylands v Fletcher, the defendant appointed some independent contractors to construct a reservoir in order to provide water to his mill. There were some unused shafts under the site, which the contractors failed to locate. After water was filled in the reservoir, it burst through those shafts and flooded adjoining coalmines belonging to the plaintiff. Even though the defendant was not negligent and had no knowledge of the shafts, he was held liable.
In India, this rule was formulated in the case of M.C. Mehta v Union of India (1987), wherein the Supreme Court termed it as ‘Absolute Liability’ This rule was also followed in the case of Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v Union of India (1996)
EXAMPLES
·         Section 92A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1938 also recognizes this concept of ‘liability without fault’.
·         Morgans v Launchbury.[26]  case, the House of Lords held that in order to affix liability on the owner of a car for the negligence of its driver, it was necessary to show either
1.      that the driver was the owner's servant or that, at the material time, the driver was acting on the owner's behalf as his agent.
2.      driver was using the car at the owner's request, express or implied, or on his instructions, and was doing so in performance of the task or duty thereby delegated to him by the owner.




The ingredients of the Rule of Strict Liability are:
 

1. Force Majore   or Act of God is a good defence in an action under the Rule of Strict Liability.

1. In cases where the wrong done has been by someone who is a stranger and the defendant has no control over him is a good defence

 
LAW LAID DOWN UNDER WORKMAN COMPENSATION ACT 1923
 
The vicarious liability of an employer towards its worker under  industry  injury sustained /damage caused to body /parts/permanent or disability  or death of a worker during the course of duty;
 
“Arising out of and in the course of employment “
 
Doctrine of Notional extension  of employer’s premises
Sourashtra Salt manufacturing company v BaiValu Raju 1958 SC 881”
 
“The question when does an employment begin and who does it cease ,depends upon the facts of each case .The employment does not necessarily end when the ‘down “ signal is given or when the workman leaves the actual workshop where he is working .There is a notional extension at both the entry and exit by time and space “

 
 
                                                                        -

Previous

Next