Question

Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.

Principle: Master is liable for the wrongful acts committed by his servant; provided the acts are committed during the course of employment. However, the master is not liable if the wrongful act committed by his servant has no connection, whatsoever, with the servant's contract of employment.

Facts: D' is a driver employed by 'M', who is the owner of a company. During lunchtime, 'D' goes to a closeby tea shop to have a cup of tea. There he ('D') picks up a fight with the tea shop owner ('T'), which resulted in some damage to his shop. 'T' wants to sue' for claiming compensation for the damage caused by the fight. Which of the following derivations is correct?

Options

• 'M' will be liable because 'D' is his servant

• Both 'M' and 'D' will be liable

• 'M' will not be liable because the wrongful act (picking up fight) was not committed in the course of D's employment

• 'M' will be liable albeit the wrongful act (picking up fight) was not committed in the course of D's employment

Answer 1

'M' will not be liable because the wrongful act (picking up a fight) was not committed in the course of D's employment

Explanation:

According to the principle of Vicarious Liability in the Law of Torts, the master is liable for the wrongful acts committed by his servant during the course of employment.  
In this case, M will not be liable because the wrongful act was not committed in the course of D's employment, as D went to have a cup of tea during lunch time.