Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
Principles: A servant is one who is employed to do some work for his employer (master). He is engaged under a contract of service. He works directly under the control and directions of his master. · In general, the master is vicariously liable for those torts (wrongful acts) of his servant which are done by the servant in the course of his employment.
Facts: 'M' appointed 'D' exclusively for the purpose of driving his tourist vehicle. 'M' also appointed 'C' exclusively for the purpose of performing the work of a conductor for the tourist vehicle. During one trip, at the end of the journey, 'C', while 'D' was not on the driver's seat, and apparently for the purpose of turning the vehicle in the right direction for the next journey, drove it through the street at high speed, and negligently injured 'P'.
Options
'M' could not be made liable for the act of 'C', as his (C's) act of driving the vehicle was not in the course of his employment.
'M' could be made liable for the act of 'C', as his (C's) act of driving the vehicle was within his scope of employment.
'M' could be made liable for the act of 'C', as 'C' was employed under a contract of service.
'M' is not liable as he was not present at the time of accident.
Solution
'M' could not be made liable for the act of 'C', as his (C's) act of driving the vehicle was not in the course of his employment.
Explanation:
The reasonable conclusion drawn is that M's liability arises only when the wrongdoer is his servant and the servant while doing the wrongful act is in the course of the employment. In the Present reasonable conclusion is M could not be made liable for the act of C, as C's act of driving the vehicle was not in the course of the employment.
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
Mark the best option:
Facts: Kumar had a ferocious dog which used to guard his house. One evening when Mohan was returning home after illegally purchasing an unlicensed gun, he happened to pass Kumar’s house, the latter’s dog ran out and bit Mohan’s trouser and on Mohan's turning around and raising his gun the dog ran away. Mohan shot the dog as it was running into the house. Kumar’sdog died after two days because of the gunshot and he sued Mohan for compensation.
Principle:
- Every person has a right to defend his own person, property or possession against unlawful harm.
- The person may use reasonable force in order to protect his person, property or possession.
- However, the force employed should be proportionate to the apprehended danger.
Mark the best option:
Facts: A fabric trader wanted to travel to Ludhiana to meet his distributors and show them the new stock of fabric. He hired a taxi and drove from Chandigarh to Ludhiana with samples of the new fabric. The trader stopped at a restaurant to grab some lunch. He asked the taxi driver to eat something as well and told him that he would return in ½ hour. The taxi driver took advantage of this opportunity and acting in collusion with some petty thieves, facilitated the stealing of some of the fabric samples by the latter. It was only on the next day that the fabric trader realized that some of his samples were missing. He suspected the taxi driver of carrying out this theft. Eventually, he sued the taxi company for the value of the stolen goods. Decide the case.
Principle: A master is vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of his servant in the course of his employment and which fall within the scope of employment of the servant.
Legal Principle: A person is liable to compensate others for harm caused by the escape of any inherently dangerous material that he keeps on his land.
Fact Situation: Ankit lights a bonfire in his courtyard to warm himself up during a cold winter evening. A strong wind suddenly blows some sparks from the fire, on to his neighbour’s house which catches fire and gets completely destroyed.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principle:
- 'Misrepresentation' means and includes -the positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the information of the person making it, of that which is not true, though he believes it to be true; any breach of duty which, without an intent to deceive, gains an advantage of the person committing it, or anyone claiming under him, by misleading another to his prejudice, or to the prejudice of any one claiming under him; causing, however innocently, a party to an agreement, to make a mistake as to the substance of the thing which is the subject of the agreement.
- The tort of negligent misstatement is defined as an inaccurate statement made honestly but carelessly usually in the form of advice given by a party with special skill/knowledge to a party that doesn't possess this skill or knowledge.
Factual Situation: The plaintiff, Mr. Madan, entered into a tenancy agreement with the defendant, Esso Petroleum, in respect of a petrol station owned by the latter. During the course of the negotiation of the agreement, 'expert' advisers employed by the defendant had provided an estimate of the sales which the petrol station could expect which was based on inaccurate information and consequently was significantly inflated. The value of the rent on the agreement had been calculated based on this inflated figure. As a result, it was impossible for the plaintiff to operate the petrol station profitably. Whether the plaintiff could have any action for negligent misrepresentation?
PRINCIPLE An unlawful action is sufficient to establish an actionable claim under the law of torts and the court need not go into the motivations behind such unlawful action.
FACTS Z, a reporter, had approached A, a famous politician, several times for an interview. Z knew that A was having an affair with his secretary. Frustrated and vengeful, z ran a cover story about the affair disclosing all the information and evidence of the affair. A in tum sued Z for defamation, stating the action was based on vendetta and malice on account of his refusal to give Z an interview. The suit against Z shall
LEGAL PRINCIPLE A master will be liable for the wrongful acts of his servants in the course of employment.
FACTUAL SITUATION Maria was an old widow who opened an account with the Indian Overseas Bank, whereby she would deposit ₹5 every day in the bank. Stephen was her neighbour, who used to collect the amount and deposit them in the bank. Stephen would get a small commission from the bank for the money deposited. One day, it was discovered that Stephen who had not deposited the money for more than three months had vanished with the amount. Maria filed a suit against the Bank.
Principle: A libel is a publication of a false and defamatory statement tending to injure the reputation of another person without lawful justification or excuse. Slander is a false and defamatory statement by spoken words or gestures tending to injure the reputation of another.
A wrote a letter to B calling him a cheat. B's clerk C opened the letter, as he normally did (a fact which was known to A) and placed it on B's table. B alleges that A has committed libel
Principle: A Master is liable for the acts of his Servant as long as he can control the working of his servant.
A owned a taxi agency. She had hired B to drive one of her cars. On January 1, 2010, C called up A's taxi agency and asked for a car to drop him from his house to his place of work. On the way, because of the driver's negligence, the car hit a road divider and C was injured. He sued A for damages.
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: An employer is liable for the negligence of his employee. But an employer is not liable for the negligence of his employee, if the victim of such negligence is one of his other employees.
Facts: A and B were working in factory as unskilled labourers. A was carrying a basket of stones on his head. B was sitting on the ground. When A crossed B, all of a sudden a stone fell down from the basket and hit B on his head. B died immediately.
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: A person has no legal remedy for an injury caused by an act to which he has consented.
Facts: 'R', a cricket enthusiast, purchases a ticket to watch a T20 match organized by the Indian Premier League (IPL). During the match, a ball struck for six hits 'R' on his body and injures him. He sues IPL for compensation for the medical expenses.
Which of the following derivation is correct?
