Vicarious Liability

The legislation lays forth particular obligations for its citizens. It is a violation to neglect these obligations. When someone disregards the duties imposed by civil law, They are infringing tort law, not criminal law or certain civil wrongs like breaching a contract or betraying confidence. A tort is primarily a civil offence, meaning it violates someone else's broad legal rights.

The legal obligation an individual has for the deeds of another because of their relationship is known as vicarious responsibility. Latin word "vice," which means "vice," is where the word "vicarious" originates. "in place of." The concept of vicarious liability in tort law pertains to the idea that one individual bears responsibility for the actions of another, hence transferring culpability from one party to the other.

Vicarious liabilities therefore arise when one person is accountable for the deeds of another. This is an exception to the general norm that holds the act's perpetrator solely responsible. "Qui facit per se per alium facit per se," or "He who acts through another is considered to have done it themselves," is the foundation upon which vicarious responsibility is based.

Essential conditions to constitute a Vicarious Liability

The essential conditions to constitute a vicarious liability are-

• Existence of certain relationships between both parties.

• The offence should be committed by either party

• The wrongful act committed by either party should be during the course of employment.

Existence of certain relationships between the parties

As was previously said, vicarious responsibility in tort law refers to situations in which one person is held legally responsible for the wrongdoings of another. This holds for principal-agent, master-servant, and employer-employee relationships. It's important to emphasise that the relationship in question ought to be legal. showing that the agent or employee is carrying out their duties in accordance with a legal contract or agreement with the principal or employer.

The offence should be committed by either party

Either party to a contract must commit the offence for there to be vicarious liability. If one of the two parties to a contract is the master and the other is the servant, and the servant violates any laws, In this instance, the servant's transgression will be the master's fault. Since the master and the servant had a relationship.

The wrongful act committed by either party should be during the course of employment.

The detrimental action and the employment or contract must be connected in some way. This suggests that the action was taken to further the objectives or business of the principal contractor or employer.

For example, if an employee tasked with delivering products uses an employer-owned car and causes an accident, the employer may be held liable because the event occurred while the employee was working for the employer.

Types of Vicarious liability

Vicarious liability refers to the situation in which a person bears responsibility for the deed or crime done by another. Here are some examples of vicarious liability:

Principal Liability

When someone grants permission to another person to drive their vehicle in order to comply with an owner's request, vicarious duty binds the owner to pay for any harm or damage caused by that person's negligence.

On the other hand, B used his car for her requirements after A completed her tasks, which led to an accident. In this instance, A cannot be held accountable for B's actions.

Parental Liability

In any event, parents are accountable if their child abuses the environment they have set up to harm others. Giving a child access to a gun or allowing them to drive are two examples of these circumstances. In situations where parents do not offer sufficient supervision, they are somewhat to blame for their child's carelessness.

For instance, Y, who is ten years old, is the child of X. Y damaged Z's car because she was too preoccupied with her daily tasks to supervise her. In this instance, X is responsible for Y's behavior as Y is X's child and it is expected that X will monitor Y's behavior.

Relationship under which a vicarious liability comes into existence

As is well known, in order for one party to be held accountable for the offence committed by another, there must be a relationship between the two parties in order for there to be vicarious responsibility.

Relationship between Principal and Agent

Just as there is a relationship between an employer and an employee, a principal can be held responsible for the wrongdoings of their agent. An agent is a person who has been given permission to act as the principal's representative on their behalf. For instance, if a representative behaves dishonestly while representing the company in a transaction, the real estate company might be held accountable.

The principal's consent may be given verbally or nonverbally. Even though the principal gave their initial consent, they are nonetheless accountable for any mistakes the agents make in the course of performing their jobs.

In this instance, the principal has authority and influence over the agent. As a result, it is thought that the agent and the principal share joint blame for the tort, suggesting that their liability is unrestricted. One or both of these parties may be the target of a lawsuit brought by the plaintiff.

Relationship between Employer and employee

The vicarious responsibility principle holds that an employer is accountable for the misconduct of its workers. For instance, the company can be responsible for any damages if one of its employees uses a company car and gets into an accident. This is because, at the time of the incident, the employee was performing their duties as assigned.

It is important to remember that this requirement may still be applicable in situations where an employee disregards explicit instructions with no positive consequences. Because both parties may share full responsibility, the relationship between an agent and a principal is similar to that of an employer and employee.

The mere fact that an employee had the choice to conduct themself differently while employed by the company does not release the employer from liability when that employee engages in behaviour that is at odds with their job duties.

Relationship between partners

In a business partnership, each partner could be held liable for the transgressions of the others. This implies that if one partner behaves dishonestly while representing the company, the other partners could be held accountable for any losses.

Partners have a connection that is comparable to that of a principal and an agent, and the same agency rules apply to their interactions. When two people work together, they each look out for the interests of the other while maintaining their sense of oneness. These partnerships may grow into corporations, trusts, companies, or even Hindu shared families, or Kartas. As a result, a partner may be held indirectly accountable for the actions of another partner who breaches the law, as specified by the Indian Partnership Act of 1935.

Relationship between Parents and child

In some cases, a parent can be held directly accountable for their children's bad actions. For instance, if a young child causes an accident in a family car, the owner of the vehicle may be held legally liable for any injuries sustained

Why does Vicarious Liability arise?

Insofar as there must be a relationship between the two parties, one person or party bears vicarious culpability for the deeds or offences of another person or party. The following are the causes of vicarious liability:

1. A servant is only the master's agent, working under the supervision and command of his employer. Consequently, the servant obeys his master's commands, meaning he finishes the work as instructed by the master. As a result, the master is responsible for the actions or wrongdoings of the servant.

2. Because the master constantly values the labour of his servants, he has equal responsibility for any damage or loss resulting from the activities of the servants while they are employed by him.

3. A servant's financial status is less secure than that of the master. As a result, the master must take responsibility per legal requirement. for the actions the servant carried out Mastery allows one to protect oneself from such situations, nevertheless, by taking the necessary precautions.

Essentials to determine a Master-Servant Relationship

It is essential to determine whether a relationship existed between the master and the servant in order for there to be a vicarious liability. As previously stated, a relationship between the master and the servant is necessary in order to hold the master accountable for the servant's conduct. Therefore, a number of tests are used to ascertain the nature of the master-servant relationship. They are listed in the following order:

The Hire and Tire Test

The most popular test to determine if a relationship exists between the master and the servant is the hiring and fire test. According to this test, in a situation where an employer has the power to hire and fire employees, the employee is seen as the servant and the employer as the master. The notion behind this test's design is that the ability to hire and fire someone suggests that you have some control over their output.

An employer might, for example, assign an independent contractor to work on a specific project, but they won't be allowed to fire them until the work is done. The test of hire and fire will not apply in these situations since the employer lacks the authority to terminate an independent contractor.

The Control and Order Test

The control and order test is an additional tool for assessing the master-servant dynamic. By this test, a master-servant relationship exists if the employer has the power to oversee and direct the employee's job. This includes the ability to give instructions, the capability to supervise the task, and the authority to select the methods and procedures to be used in carrying out the task.

While the master may not be able to terminate an independent contractor, he does have the authority to manage and give instructions to the contractor regarding the tasks that have been delegated to him.

For instance, if a master hires an independent contractor to paint his car, the employer becomes the independent contractor's master since the master can direct the independent contractor to choose the colour of paint he desires.

The Multiple Test

The multiple test is used to distinguish between a contract of service and a service contract. It also helps determine if the servant works for the master directly or as an independent contractor.

The competent court defines the factors to be taken into account in determining whether there is a contract of service in the case of Ready-mixed Concrete v. Minister of Pensions and National Insurance.

• The employee agrees to provide labour and skills to the corporation in exchange for compensation or other incentives.

• A master-servant relationship is indicated by the employee's consent to a certain degree of control from the employer while performing their job.

• Given the concept of a service contract, the remaining terms and conditions of the agreement must make sense.

Exceptions to the liability of a master

The rules of vicarious responsibility state that although a master is accountable for the actions of his servant or employee, in certain situations the servant or employee is also accountable for his own actions. They're

• When a servant is legally required to perform a task that the master is unable to delegate, the master is not liable.

• When a servant participates in the removal of help from a neighbouring land, the master is not liable.

• The master is not liable for situations in which very dangerous activities are taken.

• In situations where individuals must escape the fire, the master is not liable.

• Under no circumstances when the highways are used is the master accountable.

The Doctrine of Respondent Superior

The Latin expression "Let the master answer" is the source of the American doctrine. This theory was put into place to recognize the restricted financial capabilities of subordinates and to rein in the careless actions of superiors, such as employers or masters. When this approach is applied, negligent acts committed by an employee or servant while they are at work subject both to accountability—the employer and the servant.

Requirements of this doctrine

The Doctrine of Respondent Superior is composed of two basic requirements. They're

• For a master or employer to be properly held responsible for the acts of their employees and servants as if they were their own, there must be a link between them.

• A tortious act committed by a servant or employee must take place within the context of their employment.

The court uses the following tests to ascertain the nature of the connection between a master and a servant:

• The power that the employer has over the worker

• Whether the employer works for a company or for a profession

• The abilities required for that specific position

• Whether the employer gives the worker the tools, equipment, and instruments

• The employee's working hours

• The manner in which the employee is compensated

• Whether or whether the position offered is associated with the business

• Whichever of the two parties is in charge of the company

Case law on Vicarious liability

In the case of State Bank of India v. Shyama Devi

Checks written out to a friend who was employed by the defendant's bank were delivered by the plaintiff's husband to be deposited into his account. There were no receipts for the deposits, and the friend stole the money.

The court found that although the employee had committed the fraud, he was not acting in the course of his employment at the bank; rather, he was acting as a friend of the depositor. As a result, the defendant's bank could not be held liable through vicarious liability.

Conclusion

Through vicarious liability, someone who is not directly at blame for any tortious wrong may nevertheless be held liable. It might be interpreted as the strict obligation of the boss to the deeds of his employees. Without a doubt, the concept helps the plaintiff, or victim, file a claim and get compensated for whatever harm was done to him. Furthermore, there are instances in which the master is released from responsibility for the actions of the employee or servant.