Vicarious Liability Under Torts| Law of Torts Notes

 

Introduction

Vicarious liability is an essential legal doctrine under tort law where a person or entity is held responsible for the wrongful acts of another person. Typically, this applies to situations where employers are held liable for the actions of their employees. The underlying principle is that the party in control of another (the superior) should be responsible for their actions, even if the superior did not directly engage in the wrongful act.

This article provides a detailed exploration of vicarious liability in tort law, its key elements, case law, and how it functions to ensure accountability.

What is Vicarious Liability in Tort?

Vicarious Liability : Origin and Meaning

This concept makes one man liable for the acts of another because of certain relationships like Master and Servant, Parent and children etc. Originally it came from “Quit facit per alienum facit per se” (He who does an act through the instrumentality of another does it himself). This rule was inadequate to explain the reason. Later the “General command theory” was put forward and then “particular command theory”. None of these was satisfactory and the modern theory is that the master is liable because he is a substantial fellow or authority. As Winfield points out this theory is based on “Social convenience and rough justice“.

Vicarious liability in tort arises when a superior, such as an employer, is held liable for the tortious acts of another, like an employee, even though the superior did not directly commit the tort. This doctrine is based on the principle of “respondeat superior,” which means “let the superior answer” for the actions of their subordinate.

The doctrine of vicarious liability is designed to ensure that victims of tortious acts receive compensation from a party that is in a better financial position to pay damages, such as a business or corporation. Employers, for example, benefit from the work of their employees, and therefore, they should also bear the responsibility for any harm caused by the employee during the course of their work.

‘Servant’ and independent contractor distinguished : The Servant is a person who works according to the instructions of the master. The master can, not only order him to do an act but can also control how it should be done. The servant works under the thumb of the master. The master has full powers to control the acts of the servant. He has the powers of removal also. He is different from an independent contractor who undertakes to do a piece of job according to the requirements of the employer. The independent contractor is not under the control of employer. Hence, the employer is not liable for the acts of the independent contractor.

Liability of the Master: The master is liable for the acts of the servant, if the acts are done within the course of his employment otherwise, he will not be liable.

“Within the course of employment” means :

1. Doing an authorised act
2. Doing an authorised act in an unauthorised manner and Doing acts which are incidental thereto.

The act of the servant must fall into any one of the above, then only the master becomes liable. Broadly speaking the master is liable for carelessness, mistake and wilful wrong doing of the servant. Sometimes he is liable for the criminal acts of the servant.

Carelessness of the Servant: This is the most common kind of wrong which is generally due to the negligence of the servant. The intention of the servant is not material. If the servant is acting in the course of his employment, then the master becomes liable, but if the servant is on a frolic of his own then the master is not liable.

The leading case is Century Insurance Co. V. Northern Ireland Road Transport. In this case, the driver of a petrol lorry was transferring petrol from the lorry to the tank. He negligently struck a match to light a cigarette and threw it on the floor. This caused a conflagration and an explosion. The property of P was damaged. The defendant master was held liable for the careless act of the driver, as the act had been done in the course of his employment. “Lighting a cigarette was an act of the servant for his comfort and convenience”. The act was innocent, but was a negligent act of the servant, and hence the master was liable.

Mistake of the Servant: Here the servant is a mis-guided enthusiast. The leading case is Bayley V. Manchester Railway. The porter of the defendant Railway Co. violently pulled out from a train P who had a ticket to go to some destination. In fact, the porter had mistakenly taken P to be going in a wrong train. P sued and the Railway authority (master) was held liable.

In another case the servant of D suspected that sugar was pilfered by a boy from the wagon and he struck the boy, who fell and a wheel of the wagon went over his foot. D was held liable.

In another case a petrol bunk servant under a mistake, as to payment assaulted a car owner P who had taken petrol. The servant did not know that P had already paid for the petrol. The master was held liable for the act of the servant.

Doctrine of Vicarious Liability

The doctrine of vicarious liability operates under certain conditions, and the following key elements must be satisfied for liability to arise:

1. Relationship between the Parties: Vicarious liability typically arises in an employer-employee relationship. The employer is held liable for the wrongful acts committed by the employee while performing their duties. In some cases, an agent-principal relationship can also trigger vicarious liability.
2. Course of Employment: The wrongful act must occur within the scope of the employee’s employment. If the employee was performing tasks related to their job when the tort occurred, the employer will generally be held liable. However, if the employee deviates from their duties for personal reasons (referred to as a “frolic of their own”), the employer may not be held liable.
3. Authorized Acts: Even if the act was performed negligently or unlawfully, if it was done as part of the employee’s authorized work, the employer may still be held liable.

Vicarious Liability in Tort Notes: Important Concepts

1. No Requirement for Direct Fault: One of the unique aspects of vicarious liability is that the employer or superior does not need to be directly at fault. The plaintiff only needs to prove that the employee committed the wrongful act within the course of their employment.
2. Deep Pocket Principle: The doctrine ensures that the party in a better financial position, typically the employer, compensates the victim. This is known as the “deep pocket” theory.
3. Independent Contractors: Generally, vicarious liability does not apply to independent contractors unless they are under significant control by the employer. However, in certain circumstances, employers may still be held liable for the actions of independent contractors, especially in cases involving non-delegable duties.

Wilful wrong of the servant: Here there are two rules.

1. The act of servant is still in the course of employment even if it is forbidden by the master.
2. It is not outside his employment if he intends to benefit himself, though not his master.

Vicarious Liability Case Law: Key Judicial Decisions

1. Limpus v. London General Omnibus Co. (1862) In this case, a bus driver employed by the defendant company was driving recklessly and caused an accident, injuring the plaintiff. The court held the employer liable, even though the driver’s negligence was beyond the employer’s specific instructions. The company was responsible because the driver was acting within the scope of his employment, even if negligently.
2. State of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidhyawati (1962) In this case, the driver of a government vehicle caused a fatal accident while driving negligently during the course of his employment. The Supreme Court of India held that the state was vicariously liable for the negligence of its employee, as the wrongful act occurred during the course of his duties.
3. Beard v. London General Omnibus Co. (1900) Here, a bus conductor, without authorization, attempted to drive a bus and caused injury to the plaintiff. The court ruled that the employer was not liable because the conductor was acting outside the scope of his employment. This case highlights the distinction between authorized acts and personal deviations.
4. In Lloyd’s Case, D was a firm of solicitors. It had employed a clerk to do its work. P a widow was the owner of some cottages. She went for professional advice and the clerk asked her to execute documents, which she did. Here he had conveyed cottages to himself. The court held that D the master was liable for the wilful wrong doing of the servant clerk. 

Criminal acts of the servant: The general rule is that only in some cases master is liable. In Morris V. Martin, P gave her furcoat for dry cleaning to X who handed it over to D. The servant of D sold it away. It was held that under the circumstances D was liable for the criminal act of the servant. The master is not liable except in some cases where the act amounts to fraud or theft or assault.

Types of Vicarious Liability in Law of Torts

There are several types of vicarious liability under tort law, including:

1. Employer Liability for Employees: The most common form of vicarious liability, where an employer is held responsible for the actions of an employee committed during the course of employment.
2. Principal-Agent Liability: A principal can be vicariously liable for the actions of their agent if the agent acts within the scope of their authority or employment.
3. Partnership Liability: Partners in a business can be held liable for torts committed by other partners while conducting business on behalf of the partnership.
4. Parent-Child Liability: In some jurisdictions, parents may be held vicariously liable for torts committed by their minor children, especially when the child acts under the direction or control of the parent.

There are a number of non-delegable duties 

1. Delegation may be a breach of duty itself and the employer may be negligent in giving instructions or information to the independent contractor. In a case, a gas company had no authority to interfere on the Highways. Independent contractor’s servant negligently left a heap of stone over which the plaintiff fell and was injured. Held, the employer was liable. (Ellis V. S. G. Co.)
2. Obligations of the employer are to provide, a competent staff of men, adequate material and a proper system of effective supervisor If he does not follow these, the employer becomes liable. ‘
3. Operations on or adjoining the highways : In Tarry V. Ashton there was a over-hanging lamp of D on the foot way. D appointed independent contractor to repair who did it negligently. The lamp fell on P a passer-by. It was held that the employer D was liable.
   • In Grey V. Pullon the defendant D had statutory authority to make a drain from his house to a sewer across the road. He appointed independent contractor to cut trenches, who did it but negligently filled it up. The plaintiff P a passenger, was injured. D was held liable.

4. Case of strict liability : The rule in Ryland V. Fletcher is applicable in respect of bringing and storing of items which cause injury when they escape. In such case the employer is liable.
5. Cases of statutory authority : The recent enactments have fixed the liability of the employer under the Factories Act, Workmen’s Compensation Act etc. In Padbury’s case, D employed a subcontractor to put casements to the windows. In so putting, an iron tool which had been kept by the servant on the window sill, fell and injured P on the street. P sued D. The court held that D was not liable as the tool was not placed in the ordinary course of doing work. There was only a collateral negligence of D.
6. When the employer personally interferes and gives directions to the independent contractor the employer becomes personally liable.

Joint Tort-Feasors

When two or more breaches of legal duty by different persons result in a single injury to the plaintiff- P, then the two or more persons are called joint Tort Feasors. According to Lord Justice Bankers “Persons are said to be Joint tort feasors when their shares in the commission of tort are in furtherance of a common design”.

In Brook V. Bool : Two men were searching for a gas leak. Each applied naked light to the gas pipe in turn and one of them caused explosion. They were held to be joint tort feasors. This is different from a case where two ships negligently collided and later dashed against another vessel negligently. This is also different from a tort committed by a child under the directions given by the parents.Contribution : Both the joint tort-feasors are liable in tort. But, the plaintiff can claim the amount in full from one of them. Question arises in such cases whether one tort-feasors may claim indemnification from the other.

In Merry Weather V. Nixon. A and B jointly damaged the machinery in C’s mill. C sued them jointly and got compensation which he recovered from A. Now A sued B for half the amount which he had paid. It was held that A could not recover from B. This decision has been reversed by the Parliament in England in the Law Reforms Act 1935. According to this one tort-feasoor can recover his contribution from the other tort-feasor. Hence he is entitled to be indemnified.

Employer Liability: Understanding the Scope of Employment

A key factor in determining vicarious liability is whether the employee was acting within the scope of their employment at the time the tort was committed. Courts consider whether the employee was performing duties assigned by the employer or deviating from those duties for personal reasons.

For instance, if a delivery driver causes an accident while making deliveries, the employer is likely to be held liable. However, if the driver causes an accident while running a personal errand during work hours, the employer may not be liable as the driver was not acting within the scope of employment.

Strict Liability vs. Vicarious Liability: The Key Differences

While both strict liability and vicarious liability are doctrines that impose responsibility without proof of fault, they differ in their application:

• Strict Liability: In strict liability cases, a party is held liable for damages caused by dangerous activities or products, regardless of intent or negligence. It applies in situations such as keeping dangerous animals or using hazardous substances.
• Vicarious Liability: This doctrine holds one party liable for the wrongful acts of another, typically in an employer-employee relationship, where the wrongful act occurs within the scope of employment.

Vicarious Liability Meaning: Simplified Explanation

The meaning of vicarious liability is that one party (usually an employer) is held legally responsible for the wrongful actions of another party (usually an employee) if the actions occur during the performance of their duties. This principle ensures that victims of tortious conduct can be compensated by those in a better financial position to pay.

Limitations to Vicarious Liability

1. Personal Deviations (Frolic): If the employee was acting outside the scope of employment or engaged in a personal activity at the time of the wrongful act, the employer may not be liable.
2. Independent Contractors: Vicarious liability typically does not apply to independent contractors unless they are performing duties that are integral to the employer’s business or are subject to close supervision.
3. Non-Delegable Duties: In some cases, vicarious liability may apply even for independent contractors if the employer has a non-delegable duty, such as ensuring safety on their premises.

Conclusion: Rule of Vicarious Liability in Tort Law

The rule of vicarious liability plays a critical role in modern tort law by ensuring that victims of wrongful acts receive compensation from those who are in a position of control or authority, such as employers or principals. By holding employers responsible for the actions of their employees, the law promotes accountability and ensures that those harmed by tortious conduct are not left without remedy. Understanding the intricacies of vicarious liability under the law of torts is crucial for legal professionals and businesses alike to manage risks and responsibilities effectively.