Liability of The Servant For Wrongful Acts Done By Servant For Master’s Benefit
Liability in a tort circumstance can here and there include various elements. For instance, a tortfeasor may get to be at risk to a few unique casualties on the off chance that they have harmed a gathering of individuals.
Alternately, a few distinct tortfeasors can be held subject for the wounds of a solitary casualty, for example, when a man is assaulted by a gathering. It is even workable for the casualty themselves to bring about risk, for instance on the off chance that they added to their own damage separated from the tortfeasor's activities.
There are three types of liabilities.
- STRICT LIABILITY
Strict liability torts, which don't require a finding of goal or carelessness, are essentially limited to ultra hazardous exercises and item obligation cases. An action is ultra hazardous on the off chance that it is so innately unsafe that even the most noteworthy level of consideration won't dispense with the danger of mischief. In the event that somebody is harmed as a result of such movement, the litigant is subject paying little mind to the level of consideration he or she worked out.
- JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY
In the event that two or more respondents are discovered at liable for an inseparable harm, the litigants will be held mutually and severally at liable. This implies every respondent is liable for the whole honour paying little respect to the individual level of deficiency. Since an alleged "profound pocket" litigant might be held subject for a whole harm grant regardless of the possibility that such a respondent is just partially at risk, California has altered the teaching of joint and a few obligation for individual damage cases. To distribute money related obligation nearer to the level of shortcoming, California does not make a difference a few liability for non-financial harms.
- VICARIOUS LIABILITY:
By and large, a man is at risk for his own particular wrongful acts and one doesn't bring about any obligation for the demonstrations done by others. In specific cases, notwithstanding, vicarious obligation, that is the risk of one individual for the demonstration of someone else, may emerge. All together that the obligation of A for the demonstration done by B can emerge, it is vital that there ought to be sure sort of relationship amongst A and B, and the wrongful demonstration ought to be, in certain path, associated with that relationship.
MASTER AND SERVANT
The liability of a master for torts committed in the course of employment is joint and several. A master is vicariously liable for the act of his servant acting in the course of his employment. Unless the act is done during the course of employment, the servant’s act does not make employer liable. In other words, for the master’s liability to arise, the following essentials must be there:-
- The person committing the tort must be servant
- The tort committed by the servant must be in the course of employment.
- The act must be a wrongful act authorised by the master or a wrongful and unauthorised mode of doing some act authorised by master.
Who is a Servant:-Since one of the essentials for the master’s vicarious liability is that the tort must be committed by his servants, it becomes necessary to know as to who is the servant. A servant may be defined as any person, employed by another to do work for him (the employer) on the condition that he (the person employed) is to work under the ‘control’ and direction of the employer in respect of the manner in which the work is to be done. A master is a person who has authority to give orders and get the work done by his servants. Once the power of control is established, the payment of wages is necessary to be proved. A person may do an act for his master gratuitously (without wages). The relationship of the master and servant between two persons is established only when one gives orders and another obeys that order. In Short v J. & Henderson Ltd., Lord Thankerton has laid down four tests for determining the ‘contract of service’. They are:
- The power of master so select his servant
- The power to pay wages or other remuneration.
- Master’s right to control in the method of doing the work by the servant.
- Master’s right to suspend and dismiss his servant
By all these examples and cases we conclude that the servant is not liable for the wrongful acts done by servant for master’s benefit. As in all the acts done by the servant in this particular case the master is not affected or it does not cause damage to his acts, the servant won’t be liable. This will be applicable only in the course of employment.
Author: Vaibhavi Perugu
College: Symbiosis Law School
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the article or any other publication are those of the authors. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of Educoncours or its members.