Meaning of Vicarious Liability
Vicarious liability is the liability in which a person is liable for the wrongful act of another person. Generally, a person who commits tort is responsible for the wrong. But sometimes a person is liable for the wrongful act of another person. Such kind of liability is known as vicarious liability. In case of vicarious liability, the wrongdoer is one person but law imposes liability upon another person.
In the words of Salmond, “In general a person is.responsible only for his own acts, but there are exceptional cases in which the law imposes on him vicarious responsibility for the acts of others, however, blameless he himself is.”
In Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. vs Shattwell, Lord Pearce observed. “The doctrine of vicarious liability has not grown from clear, logical or legal principle but from social convenience and rough justice. The master having (presumably for his own benefit) employed the servants, and being (presumably) better able to make good any damages which may occasionally result from the arrangement, is answerable to the world at large for all the torts committed by his servant within the scope of it.”
Also Read Question:- “A tort is essentially a civil injury but all civil injuries are not torts”-Discuss.
Also Read Aims of the Law of Torts
The doctrine of vicarious liability is based on principles which can be summed up in the following two maxims-
(i) Qui facit per alium facit per se: The maxim means, “he who acts through another is deemed in law as doing it himself.”
The reasoning is that a person who puts another in his place to do a class of acts in his absence, necessarily leaves him to determine, according to the circumstance that arise, when an act of that class is to be done and trust him in the manner it is done: consequently he is answerable for the wrong of the person so entrusted, either in the manner of doing such an act, or in doing such an act under the circumstances in which it ought not to have been done provided that what is done is not done from any capricee of the servant but in the course of
employment.
(ii) Respondent Superior: This maxim means, “Superior must be responsible” or let Principal be liable. In such cases, not only he who obeys. but also he who commands become equally liable. This rule has its origin in the legal presumption that all acts done by the servants in and about his master’s business are done by his master’s epress or implied authority; and are in truth, the acts of the master. The master is answerable for every such wrong of the servant as a committed in the course of his service, though no express command or privity is proved. Similarly a principla and an agent are jointly and serverally liable as joint wrongdoers for any tort authorized by the former and committed by the latter.
However, in modern times, the doctrine of vicarious liability is justified on a principle other than that embodied in the above maxims.
It is now held that underlying idea of this doctrine is that of expediency and the public policy. Salmond has rightly remarked in this connection that:
Also Read Relevance of intention, motive and malice in law of torts
Also Read Is it the law of Tort or Law of Torts ?
“There is one idea that which is found in the judgment from the time of Sir John Holi to that of Lord Goddard, namely, public policy.”
It should be noted that one is answerable for wrong of his servant, or agent not because the servant or agent was authorized by him or personally represent him, but because he was bound to see that his affairs are conducted with due regard to the safety of others.
According to Lord Pierce “The doctrine of vicarious liability has not grown from any very clear, ‘logical or legal principle but from social convenience and rough justice. The master having (presumably for his own benefit) employed the servant, and being (presumably) better able to make good any damage which may occasionally result from the arrangement is answerable to the world at large for all the torts committed by his servants within the scope of it.” :
Modes of Vicarious liability
A person may be liable in respect of wrongful acts or omissions of another in the following three ways:
(a) By Ratification: When one person authorizes another to commit a tort, the liability for that Tort will not only be of the person who committed the tort but also of that who authorized it. Thus a principal who authorizes it or procures a tort to be committed by his agent, will be liable for that torts as if he had committed it himself. Principal and Agent are, therefore, jointly and severally liable as joint-wrongdoers for any tort authorized by the former and committed by the latter.
If the Agent commits a tort, while acting on behalf of the principal, but without his authority and the principal subsequently ratifies and gives his assent to the act done, the principal becomes bound by the act and is responsible for it, just as if he had given a prior authority for its commission. But the ratification must take place at a time when the Principal retained the power of lawful authorization of the act to be done. In order to constitute a valid ratification the following conditions must be satisfied:
(i) The wrongful act must have been done on behalf of the principal. No man can ratify an act, which was done, by the doer himself on his own.
(ii) The principal ratifying the act must have full knowledge of the act which has been done on his behalf, unless he is content to dispense with any such knowledge and adopts the transaction whether right or wrong.
(iii) A void act cannot be ratified.
(b) By Abetment: A person who abets a tortious act is equally liable with the one who commits the torts. Thus a person is deemed to be responsible for the consequences of an act if he :
(i) knowingly for his own benefit induces another to commit a wrong; or
(ii) by the use of illegal means directed against a third party induces a person to do an act which is detrimental to that third party although the person induced may be entitled to do that act.
(c) By Special Relation: Where the doer of the wrongful act and the person sought to be responsible are related to each other in a special way. Under this head, we can consider the liability arising from the following relationship:
(1) Master and Servant
(2) Owner and independent contract
(3) Principal and Agent.
(4) Company and Directors
(5) Firm and Partners.
‘A’ is responsible for the negligent act of ‘B’ the driver of his Bus. The reason for it is that Master is always answerable for the act of his agent or servant which is done by the servant under direction, or authorization during the course of his employment. such responsibility is imposed on the master because servant acts for him and on his (master’s) behalf. Therefore, he (the owner) is answerable for the act or ommission of the servant.
Question:- What do you mean by Vicarious Liability? What are the modes by which vicarious Liability arise ?