Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Legal Principle: An employer is liable for the act of his servant performed during the course of employment.
Fact Situation: While working as a driver for Verma, Alok sometimes used to earn some side income by carrying parcels for others in Verma’s car without his knowledge or permission. While going to pick Verma from the airport one day, Alok stopped to deliver a parcel he was carrying with him. While he was delivering the parcel, which unknown to him was one of contraband goods, the police arrested Alok.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
पर्याय
Verma is liable for the act of Alok since he is Verma’s driver
Verma is liable for the act of Alok since he had gone to pick Verma from the airport.
Verma is not liable for the act of Alok since Alok himself did not know that he was carrying contraband goods.
Verma is not liable for the act of Alok since carrying the parcel was not in the course of his employment.
उत्तर
Verma is not liable for the act of Alok since carrying the parcel was not in the course of his employment.
Explanation:
Three elements need to be fulfilled to transfer vicarious liability. They are the relationship between employer v employee, the tortuous act of negligence committed, and within the course of employment. Employers to be responsible for the lack of care on the part of employees (to whom the employers owe a duty of care). To apply the respondent superior, the employee's negligence must occur within the scope of their employment. Additionally, it is important to know whether B is an employee of A and also to determine whether B was within the scope of employment when the negligent act was committed.
Although there was an employer-employee relationship between Verma and Alok, Alok was not acting in the scope of his employment when he was delivering the package with contraband goods and was arrested for the same. thus Mr. Verma is not liable for his acts.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Principle: Nothing is an offense by reason of any harm it may cause to another person if it is done in good faith and for the benefit of that person even without that person‘s consent.
Facts: A is attacked by a Lion and Lion drags him while he is crying for help. B, a passer-by picks up A‘s gun in good faith and fires at Lion which injures A. B has never used the gun before.
Principle: Everyone has the right of private defense to defend his body and property by use of reasonable force unless that person had time to have recourse to the protection of public authorities.
Facts: X receives information at 5.00 pm that Y along with few friends are planning to burn his crop at midnight which is ready to be harvested. He does not inform the village Police Station which was just one kilometer away. He gathers his family members and directs them to collect some weapons in the form of swords and lathis to protect his field/crop. At around 11.00 pm Y and his aides attack the crop and a severe fight ensues wherein Y is seriously injured.
When the consent to the contract is caused by coercion, then under Section 19, the contract will be considered as:
This tort occurs most often in society.
PRINCIPLE Res ipsa loquitur reverses the burden of proof, creating a rebuttable presumption of the guilt of the defendant in situations where the default of the defendant seems apparent.
FACTS X, a truck driver, crashed into Y for no fault of his while trying to save Z, a student who was loitering in school uniform. Based on the facts above, Y inquires the presumption of negligence shall be in favour of
PRINCIPLE Mere delegation does not transfer authority unless there is an actual transference of the power to control the actions of the servant.
FACTS The Delhi Metro Rail Corporation set-up a link transport service permitting passengers to use buses to the end destinations. These buses and drivers were provided on contract to the Metro Corporation by the Delhi Bus Company and the drivers were trained, supervised and instructed into the routes and manner of driving by employees of the corporation. When a passenger X, had boarded one such bus and was involved in an accident on account of the bus driver; he wants to know against whom should he file the suit under the principle of vicarious liability.
Which follow from the application of the undermentioned legal principle:
Legal Principle: The occupier of premises owes a duty of care to all his invitees and visitors.
Factual Situation:
Devi who was the owner of a big home with a compound wall, constructed an underground tank to store water. This was covered by jute bags since the work was incomplete. The postman who came inside to deliver registered letter fell into this tank and hurt himself. There was also a box on the outside of the compound wall, where all the mail could be deposited. The injured man filed a suit against Devi claiming compensation.
Which follow from the application of the undermentioned legal principle:
Legal Principle: Even if the sovereign functions of the State are discharged negligently the State is not vicariously liable in tort.
Factual Situation:
A’ was a trader in gold. There he was arrested by Police and was detained in the police lock-up after search. The gold with him along with sundry other things was seized. Later he was discharged. His possessions seized by the police were returned, except the gold. HE moved against the State in tort. In the words of the Supreme Court, “There can be no escape from the conclusion that the Police Officers were negligent in dealing with the property after it was seized.” One of the Constables was a Muslim. He fled with gold to Pakistan.
Rules:
A. A person is an employee of another if the mode and the manner in which he or she carries out his work is subject to control and supervision of the latter.
B. An employer is required to provide compensation to his or her employees for any injury caused by an accident arising in the course of employment. The words ‘in the course of the employment’ mean in the course of the work which the employee is contracted to do and which is incidental to it.
Facts:
Messers. Zafar Abidi and Co. (Company) manufactures bidis with the help of persons known as ‘pattadrs’. The pattadars are supplied tobacco and leaves by the Company and are required to roll them into bidis and bring the bidis back to the Company. The pattadars are free to roll the bidis either in the factory or anywhere else they prefer. They are not bound to attend the factory for any fixed number of bidis. The Company verifies whether the bidis adhere to the specified instructions or not pays the pattadars on the basis of the number of bids that are found to be of right quality. Aashish Mathew is one of the pattadars of the Company. He was hit by a car just outside the precinct of the factory while he was heading to have lunch in a nearby food-stall. Aashish Mathew has applied for compensation from the Company.
In case the pattadars were compulsorily required to work in the factory for a minimum number of hours every day, then it would be correct to state that:
Assertion (A): All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish or administer educational institutions of their choice.
Reason (R): Institutions established by the minorities are not entitled to governmental aid and government is not under an obligation to give aid.
