Vicarious Liability

 Introduction: Vicarious Liability deal with the cases where one person is liable for another act, generally in any law a person is liable for its owns act and not for others act but in certain cases liability is arises for another person for act done by own. Example of some situation in which liability is arises, like a master is liable for his act of servant act done in the course of the employment, liability arises partner in each others in tort, liability arises in the principle for the tort of his agent. When an agent commit a tort in his court of employment as an agent of his master the master is liable for his act, when the wrongful act is done by one partner in the ordinary course of the business of the firm. 

1st- Principle and Agent

In the principle agent one person authorized to another person committed tort, in this case the liability is arises for not only the person who commit the crime but also on the person who authorized her. The authority to do the act can be express or implied also 

In Case Ormrad v. crosville motor service ltd, for the purpose of the vicarious liability even a friend, driving my car for me, may be an agent for my Tortious liability, in this case the owner of a car asked his friend to drive his car while driving the car was so driven by the friend, it collided with a bus. The owner of the car was held liable. 

2nd- Partners 

In this partner relationship as between partner tort committed by any partner in the course of business of the firm liable of each partner in joint and several. 

3rd- Master and Servant

If a servant does a wrongful act in the course of his employment the master is liable for it. The doctrine which is based on the maxim Respondent Superior which mean let the master be held liable or the master is responsible for the act committed by the servant, put the supervisor in the same position like as he committed the same act. For the liability the essential element is require is the tort was committed y the servant, and the servant committed the tort in the course of his employment. 

Exception:  If an employer authorize the doing of an illegal act, or subsequently ratifies the same, he can be liable for such an act. Employer himself is a party to the wrongful act along with the independent contractor and therefore, he is liable as a joint toetfeasor.  An employer authorizes the doing of an independent contractor in cases of strict liability.  If the tort results in the breach of master common law duties to his servant, he would be liable for the same and it is no defence that the master was acting through an independent contractor. 

In the case State bank of India v. Shyama Devi the husband gave some amount and cheques to his friend, who was an employee in different bank for being deposit in the plaintiff account. No proper receipt for the deposit was obtained. The bank employee misappropriates the amount. It was held by the Sc that the employee when he committed the fraud was not acting in the scope of banks employment but in his private capacity as the depositors friend therefore the defendant bank could not be made liable for the same.