The Doctrine of Vicarious Liability: A Critical Analysis

Published by Vijaya Kumari, LLM on

Table of Contents

Introduction

Generally, a person is liable only for his wrongful acts, but there are certain circumstances in which a person is liable for acts done by others. The Doctrine of Vicarious Liability lies at the heart of all Common Law systems of Tort Law. It represents not a tort, but a ‘Rule of Responsibility’ which renders the defendant liable for the torts committed by another. In the case of Vicarious Liability, there must be an established relationship between both of them to hold the other person liable. The most common cause of Vicarious Liability comes from the Employer-Employee relationship. It is referred to as ‘Respondent Superior.’ The employer is held liable for the unlawful actions of an employee if he performs such an act during the course of his employment.

Meaning and Definition

The word ‘Vicarious’ is derived from the Latin word “vice” i.e, “In the place of” or “on behalf of someone.”  Vicarious means acting or doing for another. Thus in the law of torts, Vicarious Liability means liability because of someone else. The term ‘Vicarious Liability’ refers to situations wherein one party is made liable for the negligent actions of a third party they were responsible for. It literally means that one person is responsible for another’s wrong doings.

Example: The employer is responsible for his employee’s wrongdoings. And while the employee is behaving in the course of his or her employment should this responsibility occur.

Vicarious Liability defined by Salmond,

 “In general a person is responsible only for his acts, but there are exceptional cases in which the law imposes on him vicarious responsibility for the acts of another, however, blameless himself.”

The Doctrine of Vicarious Liability is based on principles that can be summed up in the following two Maxims :

  1. Qui facit per alium facit per se
  2. Respondeat Superior

1. Qui facit per alium facit per se

The ‘Qui facit per alium facit per se’ is a  Latin legal  term meaning “he who does an act through another is deemed in law to do it himself.” Two parties must have a certain kind of relationship in order to raise the liability.

i.e: Liability of the Principal for the acts of his agent 

      Liability of the Master for the tort of his Servant and

      Liability of the Spouses for each other’s torts etc.

It is a fundamental legal Maxim of the Law of Agency. The Master is obliged to perform the duties by employing servants, he is responsible for their acts in the same way that he is responsible for his own acts.

It is a Maxim often stated in discussing the liability of an employer for the act of an employee during the course of his employment in terms of Vicarious Liability.

Illustration: A is the owner of many trucks. He employs drivers to drive them for the purpose of trade and in case, one of his drivers met with an accident due to his rash driving, A, the owner will be held liable for the accident, even though A, the owner did not drive the truck himself.

2. Respondeat Superior

The  Maxim, ‘Respodeat Superior’ is derived from a Latin word, which had its origin in the United States, meaning “let the Master Answer.” This Maxim holds an employer or the principal legally responsible/liable for the wrongful acts of an employee or agent when it occurs within the scope of the employment or agency.

In order to impose such liability, evidence showing a master-servant relationship between both parties existed is mandatory. Acts that are done by the subordinates by their employment and agency can be with the express or implied authority of an employer and a master respectively.

History and Development of Vicarious Liability

During the early 1300 Century, the Anglo-Norman Period introduced the idea of complete liability for the wrongs of servants, starting to change the idea of liability only when there has been command or consent on the part of the master of the servant’s wrong. The change continued till the early 1600 Century, when the Command Theory was established. Until the 17th Century, the Master’s Liability was restricted to cases where he had particularly instructed the very act complained of.

From 1688-1710 Sir John Holt was the Chief Justice who established the rule: the master was liable not only for acts done at his express command but also for those done by his implied command. In the Herne v Nichols case, the justice discussed the liability of an employer for the acts of his employee and observed,

“Seeing somebody must be a loser by this deceit it is more reasonable that he employs and puts a trust and confidence in the deceiver should be a loser, then a stranger.”

The Doctrine of Vicarious Liability is generally applicable in Civil Law, it is also applicable in Criminal Law in exceptional cases. In Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, if the offence of Unlawful Assembly commits an offence in furtherance of a common objective, every member of that unlawful assembly will be held liable. Section 154 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the owner or occupiers of the land will be held liable when they do not take necessary steps taking place on the land by not informing the proper public authority about the unlawful assembly. Section 155 of the Indian Penal Code, makes an owner or occupier of the land held vicariously liable when the agent or manager does not prevent illegal activities from happening on their property.

Sections 268 and 269 of the Indian Penal Code deal with Public Nuisance and makes the master personally liable when the servant is creating any public nuisance. Under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, the master is held vicariously liable, when the servant defames somebody, provided:- if it falls under the definition of Defamation given under this section.

Essential Requirements of the Doctrine

  • There must be a true relationship between employer-employee, master-servant etc,.
  • The wrong must be done by someone else.
  • The tortious act should be committed during the course of employment.

Illustration: X was working in the garage owned by Y, while repairing the car of Z, X broke one of the components of the car which was worth Rs. 50,000. Y was held to be vicariously liable for the damage caused by X. 

In the above illustration, though the wrongful act was done by employee X, employer Y was held liable vicariously.

What are the Relationships that fall under Vicarious Liability?

  • Master and Servant
  • Principal and Agent
  • Partners in a Partnership Firm
  • Employer and Independent Contractor
  • Company and its Directors

Master-Servant Relationship

In tort, the master is liable for all the acts done by his servant during the course of employment. There are two important conditions that should be satisfied to impose Vicarious Liability on the master which is:-

  • The act should be done by the servant.
  • The act should be committed during the course of employment.

The Vicarious Liability of the master is based on the two Maxims, which are ’Qui facit per alium facit per se’ and ‘Respondeat Superior’ already discussed earlier.

According to ‘Salmond,’ “if any action is performed by the servant for his master’s benefit which is performed with his master’s direct or implicit authority it is called to be a master’s act for which he is held liable. Any individual who is sufficiently capable of compensating for the negative consequence of his action should not be able to delegate it and avoid serious consequences by making his servant do such acts.”

Main Incidents of Master’s Liability

There are six major ways in which a master becomes liable for the wrong done by servants in the course of their employment:-

1. The wrong committed by the servant may be the natural consequence of something done by him with ordinary care in the execution of his master’s specific orders.

2. Master will be liable for the negligence of his servant.

3. Servant’s wrong may consist of more than mistaken execution of lawful authority. Here two things have to be established:-

Firstly, it must be shown that the servant intended to do on behalf of his master something which he was authorised to do.

Secondly, It has to be proved that the act if done properly would have been lawful.

4. Wrong may be a wilful wrong, but done on the master’s behalf and to serve his purpose.

5. Wrong may be due to the servant’s fraudulent act.

6. Wrong may be due to the servant’s criminal act.

Important Case Laws

Savita Garg & Others v The Director National Heart..(2003) [1]

In this case, the hospital is the principal and the doctors are agents, here the principal is held liable for the negligence of the acts of the agents/doctors. The court observed the following reasons for making a master liable for the acts of his servants:-

  • The acts of servants are assumed to be done by the master indirectly and so for all the wrongs of servants, he is held liable. 
  • When we compare, the master is in a better financial position than the servant. For the tortious activities of his servant, the master can pay and because of this, he makes sure that all the activities of the servant are carried on with reasonable care and precautions to avoid any kind of loss and liability. 
  • The provision for the burden of liability is imposed on the master, the master is enjoyed because of the benefit arising from the actions undertaken by the servant.

Anita Bhandari & Others v Union Of India (2002) [2]

In this case, the customer/husband of the petitioner went to a bank, when he was entering the bank, the bank’s cash box was also brought inside and as a result, the security guard in haste and hurry shot the customer and caused his death. 

Issues in this case are:-

  • Whether the act of the security guard under the course of employment?
  • Whether the bank can be held vicariously liable for this act done by its servant?

The Court observed that – ”It is thus clear that even when the wrong of the employee is doing the act in question under circumstances in which it ought not to have been done is also wrong for which the master is responsible. The bank has to be held answerable for the wrong of the security guard in doing the unlawful act under circumstances in which it ought not to have been done.”

The Court concludes on the above observation that, the Respondent Bank was held to be vicariously liable for the act of servant, i.e, security guard in the course of employment.

In Lloyd v Grace Smith & Co. (1912) [3]

The plaintiff was a widow who owned 1000 pounds as dues on a mortgage and a cottage. The manager of the defendant who was a firm solicitor, advised her to sell her cottage, accordingly she authorised the manager to sell the property and to collect her money, but he absconded with the money. Thus she sued the defendant company.

The Court held that the defendant was liable for the fraudulent act of the manager because even if a fraudulent act is not authorised, the manager was authorised to take the signature and thus it was within the course of employment.

Peterson v Royal Oak Hotel Ltd. (1948) [4]

The customer, the plaintiff, on being intoxicated was refused further drinks by the barman, who was employed under the respondent and thus the plaintiff threw a glass at him. The barman took a piece of glass and threw it at him which hit his eye.

The respondent hotel was held vicariously liable for the actions of the barman who had a master-servant relation with them.

Principal-Agent Relationship

The relationship between the principal and agent is supposed to be essentially contractual. It is based on the assumption that a relationship exists when there is a contract between the parties. The Law of Agency creates a fiduciary relationship between the principal and agent. A fiduciary relationship means that the principal is placing trust or confidence in the agent to be faithful and loyal to conduct the principal’s business with care. The agent is expected to use reasonable care and diligence to accomplish the principal’s objectives. This means that an agent should use personal skills and knowledge to perform all tasks diligently while working for the principal.

The principal will be accountable for the wrongful act of an agent during the course of employment. It should be noted that, the aggrieved party may sue either or both of them and that if the aggrieved party decides to sue the agent and obtain damages, any action against the principal would be barred. It is also seen that the principal also will be held vicariously liable if the agent performs some activity in the principal’s absence that benefits the principal because the agent acted for the principal.

Trilok Singh v Kailash Bharti (1986) [5]

The Court held that the younger brother of the owner of the motorcycle could not be held vicariously accountable for the accident. Without the knowledge or permission of the owner of the motorcycle, he was outside the country, and his younger brother rode the motorcycle and caused an accident. In this case, the owner of the motorcycle is not held vicariously liable, because the younger brother of the owner of the motor vehicle is not deemed to be an agent of the motorcycle’s owner.

Partners in a Partnership Firm

Relationship between partners resembles that of an agent and a principal, therefore it is also derived from the principle of the ‘Law of Agency.’ In partnership, each partner of the firm is known to be the agent of the other partner. Therefore, there exists mutual and equal responsibility and liabilities between the partners in a partnership firm. It can be said that all the partners are held liable for the wrongdoing of one partner of a firm to the same as the guilty partner.

Hamlin v Houston & Co. (1903) [6]

One of the partners in a partnership firm bribed the clerk of the plaintiff to give some confidential information. The Court held that, since one partner of the firm breached the contract and being in a partnership, it makes every other partner jointly and severally vicariously liable for the breach of contract.

A wider and more comprehensive concept of partners and their liabilities is explained under the Indian Partnership Act of 1932. Section 4 of the Act deals with the definition of a partner, Section 6 which determines the existence of a partnership and Section 13 of the Act explains the rights and liabilities of partners.

In a partnership, all the partners are held vicariously liable for the wrongful act committed by one partner. Consequently, all the partners in the partnership may be liable to pay damages for the loss or injury of the client.

In Smt. Vunna Visalu v The State of A.P (2001) [7]

In this case, it was stated that every partner is liable for “an act of a firm.”The ‘Act of a firm’ has been defined under Section 2 (a) of the Partnership Act of 1932

‘Any act or omission by all the partners, or by any partner or agent of the firm which gives rise to a right enforceable by or against the firm.’ This is the civil liability of the firm and its partners.

Northampton Regional Livestock Centre Co. Ltd v Cowling (2015) [8]

In a partnership firm, a partner jointly and severally for his partners’ breach of fiduciary duty under Section 10 of the Partnership Act, 1890. The court held that even the partner who did not do anything is liable for the breach of the conduct of his partner as they are jointly and severally liable.

Employer and Independent Contractor

An independent contractor is an individual, who performs or works for another individual (the principal) under an expressed or implied agreement and is one who is not under anyone’s control and is independently responsible for himself and his actions unless certain cases make the person who has hired the contractor responsible. Or in other words, an independent contractor is a person who supervises the worker community and compensates them for their work.

Generally, the employer is not liable for the wrongful act committed by an independent contractor employed by him. The following are the exceptions where an employer can be made liable for the wrongful act of the independent contractor.

  • If the employer authorises the doing of an illegal act.
  • The liability of the employers arises for the dangers caused on or near the highway.
  • In cases of Strict Liability, an employer is liable for the act of an independent contractor.

When an Employer authorises him to do a tort?

When an independent contractor is hired by an employer to do some work and in the course of employment, the employer authorises the independent contractor to do a wrong act which constitutes a tort.

For instance: In the course of travelling, if a person hires a cab for reaching a railway station, he forces the driver to run the cab faster and faster and if this leads to a road accident then, the passenger would be held liable for that, because the passenger authorises the work to the driver.

Referring to the case of Tarry v Ashton (1876)[9]

A lamp installed by an independent contractor on the outside of a person’s residence. The lamp was hanging and injured a passerby. The individual who had the lamp fixed was found to be accountable since he had a responsibility to ensure that the job was done correctly.

Company and Its Directors

The Companies Act 2013, is the Statutory Authority governing the happenings of a company from its inception till the dissolution, including its responsibilities and the duties vested upon its directors. After the incorporation of a Company, though certain liabilities of directors have been charted out, the Companies Act, 2013 has been vested with certain conditions under which, such liability may be imposed, mostly with respect to fiduciary responsibilities.

Directors are the trustees of the Company’s assets, transact business and take on duties as its representatives. The Company is responsible for the actions of the Company directors because they act on behalf of the Company and all the major decisions about the company are taken by them. The Company is held vicariously liable for the wrongful acts committed by the directors in the course of employment that affect the position of the business or create a new relationship with a third party.

Example:- If a director takes a decision it causes the Company to not gain profits for a certain year and therefore directors are not able to pay the debenture holder. If the debenture holder files a suit, it would be against the Company and not the director even though the act was done by the director.

Directors act in Three Capacities in relation to the Company

  • As Agents acting on behalf of the company.
  • As trustees of the assets and profits  
  • As employees of the Company 

In Re City Equitable Fire Insurance Co. (1925) [10]

Justice Romer observed that a director is required to act honestly and diligently as a man of prudence by applying his mind and discharging his duties. Also explained the duties of directors as to what the standard of due care and diligence expected from them.

In Re Duomatic Ltd. (1969) [11]

The Court held that any wilful misconduct or culpable negligence falls within the category of misfeasance. And observed, “A director has to act in the way in which a man of affairs dealing with his own affairs with reasonable care and circumspection could reasonably be expected to act…” 

Who’s Liable? The Company or its Directors: Landmark Supreme Court Judgement

Rabindranath Bajpe v Mangalore Special Economic Zone Ltd. & Others (2021) [12]

Supreme Court comprising a division bench of Hon’ble justice M.R Shah and Hon’ble Justice A.S Bopanna took cognizance of its previously passed judgements on the Vicarious Liabilities of the key personnel of a Company in Criminal matters and held that merely because an individual of a Chairman, Managing Director/Executive Director and /or Planner/Supervisor of a Company, they cannot be arrayed as an accused in absence of any specific allegations and role attributed to them.

The background of the case was that a private complaint was lodged by a person against a company, its directors and other functionaries alleging offences punishable under Sections 406, 418, 420, 427, 447, 506 and 120 B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

The Supreme Court observed that if there is sufficient evidence of an individual’s active role coupled with criminal intent, who perpetrated the commission of an offence on behalf of a Company can be made an accused along with the Company. The Bench elaborated that, in the absence of any statutory provision, the Vicarious Liability of the directors cannot be imputed automatically when the Company is the offender.

The Apex Court held that the High Court has rightly confirmed the order passed by the Sessions Court quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Magistrate issuing process against the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 447, 506 and 120 B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

Vikas Rambal & Others v The State (2019) [13]

The Madras High Court dismissed a petition filed by the Directors of Sunrise International Labs for quashing criminal proceedings initiated against them alleging that the Company supplied drugs of substandard quality. In this case, Petitioners/Directors were prosecuted under Section 34 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, of 1940. The Petitioners contended that they would not be vicariously liable for the alleged act, since out of five directors the present Petitioners were not involved in the day-to-day functioning of the Company.

The Hon’ble High Court observed that “The decision to manufacture the drugs is the collective decision of the Board of Directors. Therefore the Directors cannot claim that they are not directly involved in the product of the drugs when the decision to produce the drugs itself is the outcome of their decision. Therefore, the case of Directors signing the cheque on behalf of the Company and the case of Directors participating in the decision to produce substandard drugs are not one and the same to hold that these petitioners are not involved in day-to-day affairs of the Company.” 

Can Directors and the Company be Simultaneously Prosecuted?

In Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Ltd. & ANR v CCI (2016) [14]

In this case, issues arose, whether the prosecution of the Company as well as of the officer be carried out simultaneously and the order passed for acquittal or conviction against them at the same time.

The Delhi High Court held that it is nowhere stated that prosecution has to be in Two Stages for the commission of an offence by a Company.

I.e: First, prosecution against the Company and thereafter, in the case the Company is held guilty against the officer-in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company.

When are the Directors Directly Responsible for Vicarious Liability?

    1.   Act of Director, Ultra Vires His Power

  • When the Director acts not during the scope of his employment or in a manner he was not authorised to act in.
  • When the Director causes harm to any third party by acting outside the powers and authorities.
  • When the act of Directors should be Ultra Vires in the eye of people.
  • When the Director applied the funds of the Company for such an act, ie,. Ultra Vires. 

    2. Functions Not Duly Performed

              When the Director is not duly performing his duty, he is imposed with a penalty and is punishable with a fine which is not less than One Lakh Rupees but which may extend to Five Lakhs Rupees under Section 166 of the Companies Act 2013.

     3. Fraud and Misrepresentation

                 When the Director acted fraudulently and misrepresented the Company leading to the piercing of the Corporate Veil, also held he commits a breach of trust or an act of misfeasance. The theory of the Corporate Veil is a legal concept that separates the identity of the Company from its members and is shielded it from the liabilities arising out of the Company’s actions. 

     4. Guilty of Negligence

               When the Director acts in a manner i.e,.either negligent or reckless or his actions are not in the best interest of the Company or if the aim of his action is his personal gain.

When is the Company Not Vicariously Liable?

A separate legal entity is one of the main features of a Company. That is to say, the Company and its members are distinct. Holding a legal position by the Company as a Separate Legal Entity, it can sue and be sued and shall hold legal rights and duties. The Company is personified by its directors who are required to act like a man of prudence as they would deal with their personal affairs of cause with reasonable care, with due diligence. The Company is held vicariously liable when the director’s misconduct whether wilful or not amounts to misfeasance. The Company is not held vicariously liable when the director’s acts, are malefic in nature under the concept of the lifting of the Corporate Veil. The Company stands liable when the directors act in a bonafide nature in case any liability arises from such bonafide transactions.

The following situations the Courts pierce or lift the Corporate Veil:-

  • When the Directors are indulged in wrongful and illegal activities under the name of the Company.
  • When the Company’s Creditors suffered an unjust cost when Creditors left unpaid.
  • When the Directors are carrying on their personal business under the name of a falsely created Company. 

How Vicarious Liability is Justified?

The main Justifications for use of Vicarious Liability are:-

1. In the law of torts, an act which is committed by the servant is considered to be done by that master through him, and the master is held liable. It is assumed that any wrong done by the servant, it has been committed by his master indirectly. So, any tortious act committed by the servant was considered to be done in the direction of the master.

More recently, based on the financial position of the employers, Courts have been shown to justify Vicarious Liabilities. This belief has been held by the Courts more often by using it as a rationale for imposing Vicarious Liability on employees. The assumption of the Theory of Deep Pockets states that not only do employers have more money but they can also distribute these costs to other sources such as customers, and shareholders or increase product prices. Such channels of loss distribution do not have access by the employees because their employers financially check them.

The concept of Deep Pockets Theory refers to the “uncertainty of an activity should be borne by the person who is in a better or a relatively good position to handle such a risk.” In the context of a suit of law, the defendant/master is often considered to be the one with a “Deep Pocket.”

For example:- A milkman seeks the help of a boy to collect milk. When collecting milk an accident occurs, whereby the boy is injured. In this, the boy has the right to sue the milkman’s employer for compensation. Since the employer has not yet assigned the assistant despite the milkman having been given too much work. The milkman acted in the best interest of his job, the ultimate benefit of timely milk delivery goes to the employer. Therefore, it seems feasible that the employer has to bear responsibility for any casualties that arise in the process of the milkman carrying out his duties the same way they reap the benefits of employment.

2. It encourages accident prevention by giving an employer financial interest in order to encourage the employees to be safe. After a thorough study of the Doctrine of Vicarious Liability, we would think that it is a very unjust and discriminatory law. In fact, the idea behind this doctrine is that it is a very good law and at the same time also prevents various unlawful acts of exploitation of employees.

3. As the employer makes a  profit from the activities of his employees, he should also bear any losses caused by those activities. 

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 unskillfulness of a servant acting in his master’s employ. The reason for this is that every act which is done by the servant in the course of his duty is regarded as done by his master’s order and consequently it is the same as if it were the master’s own act.”

The above justification of Vicarious Liability will serve as a preventive and deterrent, motivating the employer in the future, as he will select more carefully in choosing who is authorised to act on behalf of others. This will prevent further wrongful incidents and make employers more vigilant. Justification of Vicarious Liability focuses on maintaining various standards to reassure the neglected victims as he/she will get equal justice in the form of proper and adequate compensation will be borne by a capable party.

Landmark Judgement

Pradeep Kumar v Postmaster General (2022) [15]

The three Judges bench of Hon’ble Justice L Nageswara Rao, Hon’ble Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Hon’ble Justice B.R.Gavai held that the Post office/Bank can be held liable for the fraud or wrongs committed by the employees 

In this case, the Apex Court faced the following issues:–

  • Whether the officers of the Post office were negligent? 
  • Whether there was Contributory Negligence on the part of the Appellants?
  • Whether the Post office was liable for the fraud committed by its employee?   

The Court observed that “Employees, as individuals, are capable of being dishonest and committing acts of fraud or wrongs themselves or in collusion with others. Such acts of bank/ post office employees, when done during their course of employment, are binding on the bank/post office at the instance of the person who is damned by the fraud and wrongful acts of the officers of the bank/post office. Such acts of bank/post office employees being within their course of employment will give a right to the appellants to legally proceed for injury, as this is their only remedy against the post office. Thus, the post office, like a bank, can and is entitled to proceed against the officers for the loss caused due to the  fraud etc., but this would not absolve them from their liability if the employee involved was acting in the course of his employment and duties.”

The Court referred the case law U. Ponnappa Moothan Sons Palghat v Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. & Others

It was held that the decision is left to the Court, whether the holder had been negligent in taking the instrument without close enquiry as to the title of his transferor or the negligence was so extraordinary as to lead to the presumption that the holder had cause to believe that such title was defective. The Court further held that the holder should not negligently disregard a red flag which arouses suspension regarding the title. 

 The Court further referred the case Tai Hing Cotton Mill Ltd v Liu Chong Hing Bank Ltd. The Privy Council had held that by mere negligence it couldn’t be presumed that the duty of a customer of the bank was breached. The customer had a wider duty to act with diligence. In order to form a tort, the contract must imply the duty that arose in the relationship between banker and customer. To prove contributory negligence, the sine qua non was to prove that the plaintiff had remained silent regarding the matter while the plea of acquiescence was raised even though the truth was known to them. 

The Supreme Court clarified that the Post office is entitled to proceed against the concerned officer, but the same would not absolve them from their liability if the employee involved was acting in the course of his employment and duties.   

Conclusion

Vicarious Liability is ‘tortious liability’, is the branch of a legal obligation, which allows one person to be held liable for the torts committed by another if there exists a fiduciary relationship i.e, Master-Servant, Principal-Agent, Partner of a Firm, Company and its Directors etc. Among them, they should be done during the course of employment and there should be sufficient reasons in the facts of the case to believe that the Master is Vicariously Liable. 

The Doctrine of Vicarious Liability is well settled in the case of laws, though it is not explicitly specified in any Statute. The intention behind the principle of Vicarious Liability is to provide compensation to the victim by the proper party who is accountable for the wrongful act. Though the doctrine of Vicarious Liability goes against the principle, it seems appropriate as it does serve a useful purpose. It contributes to the maintenance of safety standards and it enables the victim of negligence by employees to be reasonably certain that someone will be in a position to pay the compensation.

References

[1] Savita Garg, & Ors. v The Director National Heart Appeal (Civil) 4024 of 2013

[2] Anita Bhandari & Ors v UOI Appeal No. 8736 of 2002

Arpita Deb, Origin and Development of Vicarious Liability, Law Corner, https://lawcorner.in

Arushi Lamba, Vicarious Liability in Partnership in India, https://Indianlawportal.com

Saundarya Patil, Vicarious Liability, https://legabhyas .com

Navya Agarwal, Vicarious Liability under Law of Torts, https://www.lawcolumn.in

Lexpeeps, Vicarious Liability in case of Independent Contractor, https://lexpeeps.in

[3] Lloyd v Grace Smith & Co. (1912) A.C. 716

[4] Peterson v Royal Oak Hotel Ltd (1948) N.Z.I R 136

[5] Trilok Singh v Kailash Bharti AIR 1986

Kanvi Gupta, The Vicarious Liability under Tort Law and Case Laws, https://legallock.com

[6] Hamlin v Houston & Co (1903) 1 KB 81

[7] Smt. Vunna Visalu v The State of A.P (2001) (1) ALD Cri 894

Pankaj Bajpai, If Company is offender, Vicarious Liability of Directors can’t be imputed automatically, https://ligiteye.com

Surya Solanki, Vicarious Liability & its Justifications, https//legalserviceindia.com

[8] Northampton Regional Livestock Centre Co. Ltd v Cowling (2015) A.P 879

[9] Tarry v Ashton (1876) 1 QBD 314

[10] Re City Equitable Fire Insurance Co. (1925) Ch 407

[11] Re Duomatic Ltd (1969) 2 ch 365

[12] Rabindranath Bajpe v Mangalore Special Economic Zone Ltd,..& Others.Appeal (Crl) 1047-1048 of 2021

[13] Vikas Rambal & Others v The State Crl OP No.11184 of 2019

[14] Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Ltd,. & ANR v CCI W.P © 1776/2016 and CM No.s 7606/2016, 12396/2016 & 16685/2016

[15] Pradeep Kumar v Postmaster General (2022) SCC Online SC 154

Nupur Gupta, Cases When Directors can be held Liable for Offences of Company- Vicarious LIability, https://www.legalwriteup.com

S.S. Rana & Co. , Liability of Co’s Directors, https://ssrana.in

Loading

Categories: Critical Analysis
Tags:

0 Comments

Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *