Respondent Superior

RESPONDENT SUPERIOR
Under law of Torts, normally a person is liable

only for his own wrongful acts. But sometimes a
person may become liable for the wrongful act of
another. Such liability is called vicarious liability.
Vicarious liability of a master for the wrongful act
of his servant is based mainly on two maxims.
They are;
1. QUI FACIT PER ALIUM FACIT PER SE
2. RESPONDENT SUPERIOR
RESPONDENT SUPERIOR
This maxim means ‘ let the principal be liable’.
This maxim puts the master in the same position
as if he had done the act himself. The liability of
master and servant is joint and several.
ELEMENTS TO CONSTITUTE LIABILITY

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.
For all the wrongful acts, done by the servant in
the course of employment,the master would be
held liable. There liability is joint and several.
There are two elements for the liability of the
master to arises. They are;
 The tort was committed by the servant.
 The servant committed the tort in the course of
employment.
TEST FOR THE DETERMINATION OF REALTIONSHIP

1. The direction and control test
It implies that the authority of the master to
direct and command the agent to do authorized
work and control his action during the course of
the employment is the defining characteristic to
presume liability of the master.
2. The hire and fire test
The old test of control cannot be strictly
applied in the recent years do to the development
of technology. The new test suggests that an
employee and a servant can be fired if they do an
act which is not permitted.
AS IN THE CASE OF EMPLOYER-INDEPENDENT

CONTRACTOR RELATIONSHIP
According to the this rule, no liability arises
of the employer for the acts done by an
independent contractor is not subject to the
control and supervision of his employer regarding
the manner in which the work is to be done.
MORGAN v. INCORPORATED CENTRAL COUNCIL

The plaintiff visited the defendant’s premises.
He fell down from an open lift shaft and got
injured. The defendant had entrusted the job of
keeping the lift shaft in proper order to certain
independent contractor. It was held that there
was negligence on the part of the independent
contractor. So that, the defendant is not liable.
However there is some exception to the rule of

employer-independent contractor. In the case of
strict liability.
STRICT LIABILITY: The employer along with the
independent contractor is liable.[ RYLANDS v.
FLETCHER]
If an employer authorizes the independent
contractor to do an illegal act then both would
become liable.
VICARIOUS LIABILITY IN MEDICAL CARE
In the case of health care the hospital as well as
the employees, is to be vicariously liable for any
wrongful act committed on their part.
CASSIDY v. MINISTRY OF HEALTH

In this case, the hospital authorities were held
liable because of the negligence on the part of the
surgeon and its staff during the treatment after
the operation.
EXCEPTIONS
 Any act was done by the employee out of the
course of employment.
 In case, employee breaches the terms of
contract or the directions of doing work.
 When the employee is doing something under a
statutory duty.
CASE LAWS
CENTURY INSURANCE Co. v. NORTHERN IRELAND
ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD.
A’s servant, the driver of a petrol lorry, while
transferring petrol from the lorry to an
underground tank, the driver struck a match to
light a cigarette and threw it on the floor. This
resulted in a fire and an explosion caused damage
to B’s property. The court held that A was liable
for his driver negligence because the act was in the
course of employment.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. VIDHYAVATHI
A jeep was owned and maintained by the state
of Rajasthan for the official use of the collector of
a district. The driver of the jeep had negligently
driven the vehicle while he was bringing it back
from the workshop after repairs and a pedestrian
was knocked down. He died and his widow sued
the driver and state for the damages. The supreme
court held that state was vicariously liable for the
rash and negligent act of the driver.

Respondent Superior

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Respondent Superior

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Respondent Superior

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RESPONDENT SUPERIOR

Under law of Torts, normally a person is liable

ELEMENTS TO CONSTITUTE LIABILITY

TEST FOR THE DETERMINATION OF REALTIONSHIP

AS IN THE CASE OF EMPLOYER-INDEPENDENT

MORGAN v. INCORPORATED CENTRAL COUNCIL

However there is some exception to the rule of

CASSIDY v. MINISTRY OF HEALTH

You might also like