VICARIOUS LIABILITY - Lecture - Law - Dr. Sridhar, Lecture notes of Labour Law

Download VICARIOUS LIABILITY - Lecture - Law - Dr. Sridhar and more Lecture notes Labour Law in PDF only on Docsity!

Vicarious Liability

Vicarious Liability

• (^) Liability incurred for, or instead of, another
• (^) Liability is joint as well as several.
• (^) Wrongdoer and the principal is liable, however blameless he may be.
• (^) Liability by ratification,
• (^) Liability arising out of relationship,
• (^) Liability by abetment

Four Conditions

• (^) Only acts done at the time on his behalf, not acts done by agent on his own account, make principal liable
• (^) Person ratifying must have full knowledge of its tortious character
• (^) Ratification must take place at a time when the principal could himself have done it
• (^) Illegal and void act cannot be ratified.

Special Relationship

• (^) A person who does the wrong is liable for it, six exceptions based on relationship are:
• (^) Master and Servant, Owner & Independent Contractor, Principal and agent, Company and its directors, Firm and its partners, Guardian and ward.

Hewit v Bonvin 1940

• (^) Son driving father’s car, obtained authority from mother, to drive it. For his own purposes drove two girl friends to their home. Parents did not know girls. Negligently drove and caused death of one friend. Is father liable?
• (^) Proprietor of workshop is independent contractor caused accident, owner not liable (Devinder Singh v. Mangal Singh, AIR 1981 Pun Har 53)

Respondeat Superior

• (^) Master is answerable for every such wrong of servant committed in the course of service.
• (^) Legal assumption that every act about his master’s business done by his master’s express or implied authority, and are in truth acts, of the master.

Four Kinds of Liabities

• (^) 1. Liability of master to third persons
• (^) 2. Of servant to third persons
• (^) 3. Of master to servant
• (^) 4. Of servant to master
• (^) Master is liable for the wrongful act of servant if act was committed in the course of employment or master’s business.

In the course of employment

• (^) If the act is authorised by master, or
• (^) Is a wrongful and unauthorised mode of doing some act authorised.
• (^) Birmingham Electric Co v Hawkins. Def’s bus driver angered by several blocs on road, stopped pl. by horning loud, assaulted with revolver. Is it entirely personal to himself?

Violation of express prohibition

• (^) Machiraju Visalakshi v Treasurer, Council of Indian Mission of Lutheran Church 1978 AIR AP 310-Driver was authorised to take a police friend and prohibited from taking any new passenger. Driver took other passengers who were killed. Was it within the course of employment?

Heasmans v Clarity Cleaning Co

• (^) A 1987 case: Office cleaning contract co employed a lady to clean office and phone after office hours. She used phone up to 1500 pounds. Is Contractor liable to owner of Office? Is phoning also part of her duty? Were calls made in course of employment?

Servant’s want of care

• 2 nd^ context: wrong due to want of care in carrying out the work of employment. Porter’s case (Bayley v Manchester S & L Rly 1873) Porter has to prevent passengers from entering a wrong train. Erroneously pulled out from a right train. Is he liable?
• 3 rd^ context: Servant’s wrong may consist of excess or mistaken execution.

Excessive acts- Willful wrongs

• (^) Servant intended to do for his master, an act authorised: if properly done it would be lawful, that makes master liable. Eg Porter.
• 4 th^ Context: willful wrongs with intention of serving his purpose. If within scope of emp makes master liable. Limpus v London Gen Omnibus 1861, Driver racing with others. Is it inconsistent with the employment?

Cheshire v Bailey 1905

• (^) Silversmith’s case: driver conspired with thieves and stolen samples of silverware,
• (^) Pl who engaged that car and driver from def sued.
• (^) Is driver’s employer liable? In so conspiring with thieves, was he acting within scope of emp? (held, no)

For Criminal acts

• 6 th^ Context: Master is liable though not in criminal proceedings, yet in civil action, even in respect of criminal acts of servant, provided they are committed in the course of employment.
• (^) Uxbridge Building Society v Pickard, Managing clerk forged title deeds to create a false security. Sued for fraud. Acting under ostensible authority, so liable, even though P was not his client & there was a crime of forgery.