VICARIOUS LIABILITY BY

RELATIONSHIP
- A PROJECT
SUBJECT: LAW OF TORTS

SUBMITTED TO:MS. SHUSHMITA SINGH

FACULTY of LAW OF TORTS
Submitted By:
VIVEK KUMAR MISHRA
ROLL NO 1576
B.A. LLB, 1ST SEMESTER

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,patna

TABLE OF CONTENT

Page | 2

sl. no.
1.

NAME OF CHAPTER
INTRODUCTION

PAGE
NO.
4

AIMS AND OBJECTIVE

HYPOTHESIS

2.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION

SOURCE OF DATA

3.

INTRODUCTION: VICARIOUS LIABILITY

5-6

DEFINITION
BACKGROUND

PRINCIPLE
4.

VICARIOUS LIABILITY BY RELATION

6-12

PRINCIPLE-AGENT
PARTNERS
MASTER SERVANT

5.

6.
7.

PRINCIPLE OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY

TWIN MAXIMS
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
EXCEPTIONS
CLOSE CONNECTION TEST BY SALMOND
EXPRESS PROHIBITION
EXCEPTIONS

12-13

13-16
16-17

ACT OUTSIDE THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT

HOSPITAL CASES
GIVING LIFT TO UNAUTHORIZED THIRD PARTY

8.

CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY

18-19
19

Page | 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Page | 4

I would like to thank my faculty Ms. Shushmita Singh, whose assignment of such
a relevant and current topic made me work towards knowing the subject with a greater
interest and enthusiasm and moreover he guided me throughout the project.
I owe the present accomplishment of my project to my friends, who helped me
immensely with sources of research materials throughout the project and without whom I
couldnt have completed it in the present way.
I would also like to extend my gratitude to my parents and all those unseen hands who
helped me out at every stage of my project.

AIM AND OBJECTIVE

Page | 5

i.

To discuss (in brief) the concept of vicarious liability and its

principle.

ii.

To study the subject matter of Test of Control and its position in

India.

iii.

Discuss and analyze various case law related to test of control for
establishing vicarious liability

hypothesis
In India, The Test of Control is generally not used, even in
cases when it can be.
Test of control is not an essential ingredient to hold the
masters vicarious liability.
Test of control is confined within a limited tortuous act.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This project is based upon doctrinal method of research. This
project has been done after a thorough research based upon
intrinsic and extrinsic aspects of the project.
Source of data: Secondary Sources
a) Books
b) Newspaper
c) Articles
e) Website
Mode of Citation:
The researchers have followed a uniform mode of citation
throughout the course of this project.

INTRODUCTION: VICARIOUS LIABILITY

Generally, a person is liable for his own wrongful acts and one does not
incur any liability for the acts done by others. In certain cases,

Page | 6

however, vicarious liability, that is the 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, it is necessary that there should be certain kind of
relationship between A and B, and the wrongful act should be, in
certain way, connected with that relationship.1
The common examples of such a liability are:
(1) Liability of the principal for the tort of his agent;
(2) Liability of partners of each others tort;
(3) Liability of the master for the tort of his servant.
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.
Reasons for vicarious liability. Several reasons have been advanced as
a justification for the imposition of vicarious liability:
(1) The master has the deepest pockets. The wealth of a defendant,
or the fact that he has access to resources via insurance, has in some
cases had an unconscious influence on the development of legal
principles.

(2) Vicarious liability encourages accident prevention by giving an

employer a financial interest in encouraging his employees to take care
for the safety of others.
1 Source from Law of Torts by R.K. Bangia

Page | 7

(3) As the employer makes a profit from the activities of his employees,
he should also bear any losses that those activities cause.
The one reason for fixing his liability is historical. The personality
of the servant is deemed to be merged with the master and this
principle has survived the era of slave emancipation where
servant were treated as slaves and they did not had any
individual personality for identity.
Deeper pocket theory- The second reason for fixing liability on
master is based on public policy and master is supposed to be in
better position to pay for loss cause to the aggrieved party
through insurance for the tortuous act of his servant because of
his deeper pocket.
The third reason is expressed in the twin maxim of respondiate
superior which means let the master be liable and Qui facit
per alium facit per se which means that the act of the agent
is the act of the principle. Vicarious liability is based upon these
two principles as mentioned above.

VICARIOUS LIABILITY BY RELATION

In Vicarious liability, in order to make A liable or the tortuous act of B,
then it is necessary that there should be a certain kind of relationship
between A and B, and the tortious act should be a certain way
connected with that relationship. The common examples are1. Principle 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

Page | 8

that who authorized it.2 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 3. So, when an
agent commit a tortious act in the ordinary course of employment,
then principle will be made liable for the same.
In Lloyd v. Grace, Smith $ co. , Mrs. Llyod who owned two cottages
was not satisfied with the income therefrom, approached the office of
defendant , a firm of solicitors and she was advised to sell the two
cottages and invest money in better way. The agent of the company
played a fraud and made her sign documents which was in really a gift
deed in the name of the agent himself. He then disposed of the
property and misappropriated the proceeds. He had acted solely for his
personal benefit without the knowledge of the principle. It was held
that since the agent was acting in the course of his apparent authority,
the principle was liable for the fraud.
2. Partners
The relationship as between partners is that of principle and agent. The
rules of law of agency apply in case of their liability also. For the tort
committed by any partner in the ordinary course of business, all the
other partners are liable to the same extent as the guilty partner. 4
2 Mclaughin v. Pryor, (1942)

3 Poland v. Johan Parr & Sons,(1927)

4 S. 26, Indian Partnership Act, 1932

Page | 9

In Hamlyn v. Houston & CO.,One of the two partners of the

defendants firm, acting within the general scope of his authority as a
partner, bribed the plaintiffs cleark and induced him to make a breach
of contract with his employer by disclosing secreats relating to his
employers business. It was held that both the partners of the firm
were made liable for the wrongful act committed by only of the
partner.
3. Master and Servant
The common law principle states that a person is made liable for the
tortious act of his servant but the question is why a master should be
made liable for the wrongful act of his servant during the course of
employment. The principle of masters liability for the wrongful act of
his servant is based on following reason The one reason for fixing his liability is historical. The personality
of the servant is deemed to be merged with the master and this
principle has survived the era of slave emancipation where
servant were treated as slaves and they did not had any
individual personality for identity.
Deeper pocket theory- The second reason for fixing liability on
master is based on public policy and master is supposed to be in
better position to pay for loss cause to the aggrieved party
through insurance for the tortuous act of his servant because of
his deeper pocket.
The third reason is expressed in the twin maxim of respondiate
superior which means let the master be liable and Qui facit
per alium facit per se which means that the act of the agent
is the act of the principle. Consequently the act of the servant
becomes the act of the master.

P a g e | 10

In the words of Lord Chelmsford: It has long been established by law

that a master is liable to third persons for any injury or damage done
through the negligence or unskilfulness of a servant acting in his
masters employ. The reason of this is, that every act which is done by
servant in the course of his duty is regarded as done by his masters
order, and, consequently it is the same as if it were masters own act.
5

Constituents Of Vicarious Liability

So the constituents of vicarious liability are:
(1) There must be a relationship of a certain kind.
(2) The wrongful act must be related to the relationship in a certain
way.
(3) The wrong has been done within the course of employment.
Who is the servant
A servant is a person employed by another to do work under the
directions and control of his master.
As a general rule, master is liable for the tort committed by his servant
but he is not liable for an independent contractor.
Servant And Independent Contractor
A servant and independent contractor are both employed to do some
work of the employer but there is a difference in the legal relationship
which the employer has with them. A servant is engaged under a
contract of services whereas an independent contractor is engaged
under a contract for services. The liability of the employer for the
wrongs committed by his servant is more onerous than his liability in
5 www.lawteacher.net/Tort-law

P a g e | 11

respect of wrongs committed by an independent contractor. If a

servant does a wrongful act in the course of his employment, the
master is liable for it. The servant, of course, is also liable. The
wrongful act of the servant is deemed to be the act of the master as
well. Since for the wrong done by the servant, the master can also be
made liable vicariously, the plaintiff has a choice to bring an action
against either or both of them. Their liability is joint and several as
they are considered to be joint tortfeasors. The reason for the maxim
respondeat superior seems to be the better position of the master to
meet the claim because of his larger pocket and also ability to pass on
the burden of liability through insurance. The liability arises even
though the servant acted against the express instruction, and for no
benefit of his master.6
For the liability of the master to arise, the following two essentials are
to be present:
(1) The tort was committed by the servant.
(2) The servant committed the tort in the course of his employment.
A servant is a person employed by another to do work under the
direction and control of his master. As a general rule, master is liable
for the tort of his servant but he is not liable for the tort of an
independent contractor. It, therefore, becomes essential to distinguish
between the two. Since for the wrongful act of servant master is made
liable vicariously, the plaintiff has a choice to bring action against
either or both of them.
6 www.legalservicesindia.com/article/vicarious-liability-in-india-1634-1.htn

P a g e | 12

There liability is joint and several as they are considered to be

joint tortfeasor.
A servant is an agent who is subject to the control and supervision of
his employer regarding the manner in which the work is to be done. An
independent contractor is not subject to any such control. He
undertakes to do certain work and regarding the manner in which the
work is to be done. He is his own master and exercises his own
discretion. And independent contractor is one who undertakes to
produce a given result, but so that in the actual exclusion of the work,
he is not under the order or control of the person for whom he does it,
and may use his own discretion in things not specified beforehand. 7
Example:
My car driver is my servant. If he negligently knocks down X, I will be
liable for that. But if he hire a taxi for going to railway station and a
taxi driver negligently hits X, I will not be liable towards X because the
driver is not my servant but only an independent contractor. The taxi
driver alone will be liable for that.
EXCEPTION TO INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
In Morgan v. Incorporated Central Council,8 the plaintiff, while he
was on a lawful visit to defendant premises, fell down from an open lift
shaft and got injured. The defendant had entrusted the job of keeping
the lift safe and in proper way to certain independent contractors. It

7 Pollock on Torts, 15th ed., p. 62. Adopted by McKardie, J. in Performing

Rights society ltd. V. Mitchell, etc. Ltd., (1942)

8 (1936) 1 All E.R. 404

P a g e | 13

was held that for this negligence on the part of the independent
contractors, the defendant could not be made liable.9
There are many cases of accidents caused by mechanics, repairers or
owner of workshops during test drive of the vehicles entrusted to them
by the owner of the vehicles for repairs.
In B. Govindrajulu V. M.L.A. Govindraja Mudaliar,10 after a motor
lorry was entrusted to the owner of workshop for repair, an employee
of the workshop while testing met with an accident. In this case the
owner of the lorry was not made liable because the owner of the
workshop was an independent contractor.
The servant is employed under contract of service whereas
independent contractor is employed for the service.
In Alcock v Wraith, NEILL LJ stated: where someone employs an
independent contractor to do work on his behalf he is not in the
ordinary way responsible for any tort committed by the contractor in
the course of the execution of the work.
The main exceptions to the principle fall into the following categories:
(1) Cases where the employer is under some statutory duty which he
cannot delegate.
(2) Cases involving the withdrawal of support from neighbouring land.
(3) Cases involving the escape of fire.
(4) Cases involving the escape of substances, such as explosives,
which have been brought on the land and which are likely to do

9 (1936) 1 All E.R. 404

10 A.I.R. 1966 MAS. 332

P a g e | 14

damage if they escape; liability will attach under the rule in Rylands v
Fletcher.
(5) Cases involving operations on the highways which may cause
danger to persons using the highway.
(6) Cases involving non-delegable duties of an employer for safety of
his employees.
(7) Cases involving extra-hazardous acts.
In case of Rylands v. Fletcher, the employer could not escape the
liability for the damages caused to the plaintiff, when the escape of the
water from a reservoir got which was constructed by the defendant
from an independent contractor, flooded the plaintiffs coalmine.
TEST OF CONTROL

Traditional view: Traditional mode of differentiating between master

and servant is based upon test of control which means that the
master could not only direct what work is to be done but also the
manner of doing the work i.e. how the work need to be done.
The traditional mode of stating the distinction is that in case of
servant, the employer in addition to directing what work the servant
is to do, can also give directions to control the manner of doing the
work; but in case of an independent contractor, the employer can
only direct what work is to be done but he cannot control the
manner of doing work. This was stated by MCKARDIE, J. by taking
the writings of Pollock on Torts in a case of Performing Right Society
Ltd. v Mitchell, etc. Ltd.11
11 www.legalservicesindia.com/article/vicarious-liability-in-india-1634-1.htn

P a g e | 15

In Short V.J. & W. Henderson Ltd. LORD THANKERTON pointed out four
indicia of contract of service:
(1) Masters power of selection of his servant;
(2) Payment of wages or other remunerations;
(3) Masters right to control the method of doing the work, and
(4) Masters right of suspension or dismissal.
The important characteristic according to this analysis is the
masters power of control for other indicia may also be found in a
contract for services.
This was the traditional test. In Collins v Hertfordshire HILBERY J said;
the distinction between a contract for services and a contract of
service can be summarised in this way: In one case the master can
order or require what is to be done, while in other case he can not only
order or require what is to be done, but how it shall be done.
The Supreme Court in Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. v
State of Saurashtra

12

laid down that the existence of the right in the

master to supervise and control the execution of the work done by the
servant is a prima facie test, that the nature of control may vary from
business to business and is by its nature incapable of any precise
definition, that it is not necessary that the employer should be proved
to have exercised control over the work of the employee, that the test
of control is not of universal application and that there are many
contracts in which the master could not control the manner in which
work was done. The English Courts have also recognised that the
control test is no longer decisive.
12 1957, AIR264, 1957 SCR 152

P a g e | 16

The nature of the employment test

One accepted view is that people who have a contract of service (an
employment contract) are employees, but people who have a contract
for services (a service contract) are independent contractors. In Ready
Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions and National
Insurance,MACKEMA J., said that three conditions are to be fulfilled for
contract of service:
(1) Servant agrees that in consideration of a wage or other
remuneration he will provide his own work and skill in the performance
of some service for his master;
(2) He agrees expressly or impliedly that in the performance of that
service he will be subject to others control in a sufficient degree to
make that other master;
(3) The other provisions of the contract are consistent with its being a
contract of service.
Allocation Of Financial Risk/ The Economic Reality Test/
Multiple Test
In Montreal v Montreal Locomotive Works Ltd. LORD WRIGHT said
that in the more complex condition of modern industry, more
complicated test have often to be applied. According to him, it would
be more appropriate to apply a complex test involving
(1) Control;
(2) Ownership of the tools;
(3) Chance of profit; Risk of loss; and Control in itself is not always
conclusive.
(4) Hire and fire test

P a g e | 17

When servant is not under control of master and in various cases,

when cannot control the way in which the work is to be done. ExThe captain of a ship or a surgeon in hospital may be servants even
though they are not to be directed regarding the way they are to do
their work. The aim of hire and fire test is to bring intro category
of servants even those persons who are not subject to any such
control and apply hire and fire test i.e. a person who hires another
person and has power to fire him and he is his pay master, they he
will be the master for vicarious liability.
In a later case Market Investigation Ltd. v Minister of Social
Security, COOKE J. referred to these factors and said that the
fundamental test was; Is the person who has engaged himself to
perform these services performing them as a person in business on his
own account? If the answer is yes, it is a contract for services; if no, it
is a contract of service. There is no exhaustive list of considerations
relevant to determining this question, and no strict rules about the
relative weight the various considerations should carry in a particular
case.
The control will no doubt will always have to be considered, although it
can no longer be regarded as the sole determining factor; and that
factors which may be of importance are:
(1) Whether the man performing the services provides his own
equipment;
(2) Whether the person hires his own helpers;
(3) What degree of financial risk he takes;
(4) What degree of responsibility for investment and management he
has; and

P a g e | 18

(5) Whether and how far he has an opportunity of profiting from sound
management in the performance of his task.
According to the Supreme Court of United States, the test is not the
power of control whether exercised or not over the manner of
performing service to the undertaking, but whether the persons
concerned were employees as a matter of economic reality and the
important factors to be seen are the degrees of control, opportunities
of profit or loss, investment in facilities, permanency of relations and
skill required in the claimed independent operations.

Lending a servant to another person

Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v Coggins and Griffith
Ltd.,13The harbour board hired out a mobile crane, together with a
driver, Mr. Newall, to the defendant stevedores. Mr. Newall was paid
and liable to be dismissed by the board, but the contract of hire stated
that he was to be regarded as the employee of the stevedores. The
stevedores could tell him what to do, but not how he was to operate
the crane. Mr. Newall negligently injured Mr. McFarlane. On the
question whether the board or the stevedores were to be held
vicariously liable for the negligence of Mr. Newall, the board was liable.
The court in this case observed that an arrangement of transfer of
servant can be made under contract or otherwise with the express or
implied consent of the servant. The most satisfactory test in order to
ascertain that who the master would be for the purpose of vicarious
liability is to establish, as whom the servant is entitled to be directed
the manner of doing his work. If someone apart to the general
employer is entitled, then it will be that persons liability.
13 (1946) 2 ALL ER 345.

P a g e | 19

In the above case it was observed that that there was a only transfer
of service and not the transfer of servant . The general employer
himself had power to control the manner and not the hirer. Thats way
the general employer was made liable as a master.

CLOSE CONNECTION TEST

The concept of vicarious liability holds that a person who is free from any
personal blame may still be held liable for another's wrongdoing or tort.
However, it requires proof of a particular relationship between the two
parties involved and the law recognizes such in the relationship between
employer and employee. Therefore, an employer can be vicariously liable for
the torts committed by an employee. The basis for this is that if employers
can profit from the enterprise in which an employee was engaged when the
tort was committed, they should bear liability for any loss. In most cases,
employers are also better able to pay damages, so injured plaintiffs stand a
better chance of recovering compensation.
For vicarious liability to apply, it must be shown that the employee's tort took
place in the "course of employment". If committed in other circumstances
outside work, it would clearly be unreasonable to hold the employer liable
the actions. It is usually easy to determine this. For example, if a
construction site worker drops something from a height and injures a passerby, he will be held liable and so will his employer, since, obviously, the act
was committed in the course of employment.
However, in some situations, there is an element of uncertainty because the
employee's actions may have been unauthorized or not approved. If so,
should the employer be held vicariously liable?
Since 1907, the UK and Hong Kong courts have applied the Salmond test to
determine whether an employee's tort was committed in the course of
employment. The test considers if it was either something authorized by the
employer or an unauthorized mode of doing something authorized by the

P a g e | 20

employer. When reviewing an "unauthorized mode", the key question is

whether the employee did something which was so closely connected with
his normal duties that the employer could be held vicariously liable. The
underlying idea is that the injury done must involve a risk so inherent in or
characteristic of the employer's business that they should bear the loss.
The House of Lords adopted this "close connection" test in Lister v Hesley
Hall Ltd in 2002. In that case, the warden of a boarding house attached to a
school had sexually abused pupils residing there. The decision was that the
warden's torts were so closely connected with his employment that it was
fair and just to hold the employer vicariously liable. Although the acts of
abuse were not authorized by the employer, they were determined to be
connected with the duties which were authorized. The Hong Kong case of
Ming An Insurance Co (HK) Ltd v Ritz-Carlton Ltd in 2003 went to the Court of
Final Appeal and the same test was used. A doorman employed by the hotel
seriously injured two pedestrians when he lost control of the limousine he
was driving along Queensway. The car was hired by the hotel and, if the
regular chauffeur was absent, the doorman was sometimes required to move
it, which might involve driving along Queensway. Separately, other members
of staff used to go out to buy food and, occasionally, would persuade the
chauffeur to give them a lift.
On the night of the accident, a bellboy was going out to pick up food for his
colleagues and, as the chauffeur was off duty, he persuaded the doorman to
take him in the limousine, and the accident occurred on the way.
At first instance and before the Court of Appeal, the hotel was held not to be
vicariously liable for the doorman's negligence on the grounds that, in driving
the limousine to pick
up food, he had been acting beyond the scope of his employment. However,
the Court of Final Appeal reversed the decision. They held that, although
driving the limousine for the stated reason was not one of the doorman's
authorized duties; it was closely connected with them. This rested on the
facts that, firstly, the doorman routinely drove the limousine in the course of

P a g e | 21

his employment, sometimes along the route where the accident occurred.
Secondly, the limousine, when driven by the chauffeur, was sometimes used
to pick up food for hotel staff.
As a decision of the Court of Final Appeal in Hong Kong, this interpretation is
authoritative and binding on all future cases. Therefore, it is important for
employers to have an understanding of this close connection test in order to
minimize the risk of being held liable for the actions of their employees.
Q1: How should the close connection test be applied?
A1: You should ask whether the employees tort was so closely connected
with his employment that it would be fair and just to hold the employer
vicariously liable.

For Example, the owner of a nightclub might employ

security guards and dishwashers. If a security guard injured an unruly patron

in a fight, the owner could be held vicariously liable because the guards
normal duties are so closely connected with that possibility.
However, there would be no close connection for a dishwasher injuring a
patron, since they would not deal with them in the normal course of
employment.
Q2: What should the employer do to protect himself from possible claims of
vicarious liability?
A2: The employer should closely supervise employees to ensure they do not
carry out their duties in an improper manner.

It is not an excuse for an

employer to say he has not authorized a specific act.

Furthermore, it is

always wise to take out insurance to cover any third-party claim.

Close connection test basically analyses :
1) An act authorized by the master and done under the course of
employment and when it is performed negligently results in some legal injury
.
2) Unauthorized mode of doing some act authorized by the master under the
course of employment.
So, in both the cases master can be held liable.

P a g e | 22

Example

: If I authorize a servant to drive and he drives negligently or I

authorized a servant to deal with the clients and he deals with them
fraudulently or if I authorize a servant to help the railway passengers, but he
mistakenly causes harm to them , in each of these cases the servant is doing
the act which he has been authorized to do but his mode of doing is wrongful
. Each one of these acts is therefore, within the course of employment and
the master can be made liable for the same.
Prohibited Act
When master has put a prohibition regarding the way , in which the work has
to be done and the servant does not follow it and thus as a result commits a
tortuous act within the course of employment and for the profit of the
master, then the master will be held liable for it.
And when that act is done outside the course of employment , then he will
not be made liable.
Rose vs. Plenty:
Rose v Plenty [1976] 1 WLR 141 is an English tort law case, on the issue of
where an employee is acting within the course of their employment.
Vicarious liability was tenuously found under John William Salmond's test for
course of employment, which states that an employer will be held liable for
either a wrongful act they have authorised, or a wrongful and unauthorised
mode of an act that was authorised.
Mr Plenty was a milkman under employment in Bristol by the Co-operative
Retail Services Ltd, since Easter of 1970. At the depot where he worked,
there was a prohibition on allowing children onto any vehicle, with evidence
that the employers and trade unions had attempted to stop such behavior.
There were signs to this effect, which were large and visible to employees;
one such stated:
"Children and young persons must not in any circumstances be employed by
you in the performance of your duties.
However, children still persisted in going to the depot in the hopes of being
allowed onto milk floats.Soon after he was employed, Mr Plenty was

P a g e | 23

approached by Leslie Rose, at the time a 13-year-old boy, who asked if he

could help the employee on his rounds. This was agreed upon, and Rose
engaged in collecting money and delivering milk during Mr Plenty's rounds.
He was paid a small wage for this help on several occasions, before he was
injured due to the negligent driving of Mr Plenty, suffering a fractured leg.At
first instance, Plenty was adjudged 75% contributorily negligent, and
recovery from the employer was barred altogether, the judge stating that it
was not in the scope of Mr Plenty's employment to take on a child as a
subordinate.
On appeal to the Court of Appeal, this judgment was reversed, with Lord
Denning making the leading speech. It was established that, as in the case of
Limpus v London General Omnibus Companythe employee was merely acting
in an unauthorised way, whilst still going about his duties of delivering milk:
In the present case it seems to me that the course of the milk roundsman's
employment was to distribute the milk, collect the money and to bring back
the bottles to the van. He got or allowed this young boy to do part of that
business which was the employers' business. It seems to me that although
prohibited, it was conduct which was within the course of the employment;
and on this ground I think the judge was in error. I agree it is a nice point in
these cases on which side of the line the case falls; but, as I understand the
authorities, this case falls within those in which the prohibition affects only
the conduct within the sphere of the employment and did not take the
conduct outside the sphere altogether. I would hold that the conduct of the
roundsman was within the course of his employment and the masters are
liable accordingly, and I would allow the appeal.

Whilst the majority of Lord Denning and Scarman LJ agreed upon this
interpretation, Lawton LJ dissented, arguing that precedents set in two earlier
cases, Twine v Bean's Express Ltd and Conway v George Wimpey & Co Ltd,
could not be distinguished from the instant case. In these cases, no liability
was found on the part of the employer where passengers taken by
employees - against specific instructions - were injured. Lord Denning

P a g e | 24

distinguished the cases on the grounds that Leslie Rose had been furthering
the employee's duties, keeping Mr Plenty within the course of his
employment.
Negligent delegation of authority by the servant
If the servant negligently delegates his authority and instead of himself
carefully performing a duty allows it to be negligently performed by another
person , the master will be liable for such negligence of the servant.
In Ricketts vs. Thomas Tilling Ltd., the driver of a bus seated himself by the
side of the conductor and permitted the conductor to drive the bus for the
purpose of turning the omnibus in the right direction for the next journey .
The conductor drove the bus so negligently that it mounted the pavement ,
knocked down the plaintiff and seriously injured him. It was held that the
master was liable for the negligence on the part of the driver in allowing the
conductor to drive negligently.
Giving lift to an unauthorized third party
It was held in Twine vs. Beans Express Ltd., that the act of giving lift by a
driver to an unauthorized person in that case fell outside the course of
employment .
In Conway vs. George Wimpey and Co. Ltd., the position was similar to that
in Twines case. There, the defendants, who were

firm of contractors,

engaged in a building work at an aerodrome , had provided lorries for

conveying their employees to various sites. A notice was displayed in every
lorry that the driver was under strict order not to carry passengers other than
those employed by the defendants and that any other person travelling in
the lorry did so at his own risk. Oral instructions to that effect were given to
the drivers as well. The plaintiff, who was a labourer in another firm , was
given lift by the driver of one of the defendantss lorries and was injured due
to the drivers negligence .It was held that the act of the driver in giving lift
being outside the course of employment , the defendants were not liable to
the plaintiff . It was observed thatr giving lift to an unauthorized person was
not merely a wrongful mode of performing the act of the class this was

P a g e | 25

employed to perform but was the performance of an act of a class which he

was not employed to perform at all.

EXCEPTIONS
ACT OUTSIDE THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT
Though master has control over the manners in which work is to be
done but in certain cases when a servant does any act which is not in
the course of masters business, the same is deemed to be outside the
course of employment.
In Beard v. London General Omnibus Co.,14 at the end of the
journey, the driver of the bus went to take dinner. During the
temporary absence of the driver, the conductor drove the bus for next
journey without the knowledge of driver and met with an accident. In
this case master was not made liable because the act done by the
conductor was outside the course of employment.
TRANSFER OF SERVANT WITH CONTROL
When there is only transfer of service and not the servant as seen
above in Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v Coggins and
Griffith Ltd. Then the master can be made liable but in certain cases
where there is service is transferred with the servant and its effective
control too, then master cannot be made liable and in that case he
hierer who took that effective control will be made liable.
In case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Co. v. K.N. Kothari,15 it
has been held by the Supreme Court that the transfer of effective
14
(1900) 2 Q.B. 530. Also see Llkiw v. Samuels,(1963)

P a g e | 26

control over servant, would make the transferee of the vehicle liable
for vicarious liability. In this case, the RSRTC hired a bus and a driver
for running a bus on a specified route. The RSRTC engaged a
conductor, who managed the bus and also exercise control over driver.
It was held that for an accident cause by the driver hirer RSRTC was
made liable vicariously and not the original owner who transferred
such control.
In some hospital cases also, in certain circumstance the master
are not made liable for the negligence of staff surgeon because they
lack power of control over them.
In Hillyer v. St. Bartholomews Hospital,16 the hospital authorities
were not made vicariously liable for the negligence of their staff
involving professional care and skill, because they lacked the power of
control over them.

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
15
A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 3444
16
(1909) 2 K.B. 820

P a g e | 27

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.
The servant and independent contractor are under contract of service
and contract for service respectively. The traditional view to distinguish
between the two was the control test exclusively. But in modern
scenario this is not sufficient test as there is no single test. The
significant outcome can be achieved only by balancing different factors
with the help of different tests like:

Bibliography
BOOKS REFERRED

LAW OF TORTS by R.K. Bangia

Michael A. Jones, Textbook on Torts

THE LAW OF TORTS by Ramaswamy Iyer
THE LAW OF TORTS by Ratanalal and Dhirajlal

WEBSITES REFERRED
www.lawteacher.net/Tort-law
www.legalservicesindia.com/article/vicarious-liability-in-india-1634-1.htn
www.lawmentor.co.uk/home/resources/essay-on-vicarious-liability.html