qui facit per alium facit per se

A person is accountable for their own actions. However, there are certain situations where the law can make them responsible for someone else’s actions, even if they aren’t personally at fault. 

This happens because of their relationship with that person. “qui facit per alium facit per se” is a crucial principle that explains this concept of “liability by relation.”

Meaning of qui facit per alium facit per see

“Qui facit per alium facit per se” means that when someone acts through another person, the law considers them to have done it themselves. However, for this liability to apply, the two parties must have a specific kind of relationship. Examples of this kind of liability include:

• The responsibility of a principal for their agent’s actions.
• The liability of spouses for each other’s wrongdoing.
• The liability of an employer for their employee’s misconduct.

This type of indirect responsibility is an exception to the general rule that individuals are accountable for their own actions or lack thereof. It’s important to note that if a servant or agent commits a wrongful act that is unrelated to their job or beyond the scope of their duties, the principal will not be held responsible unless they explicitly approved or later ratified the act. In such cases, the principal is as much a stranger to the act as any unrelated third party.

Application of the Maxim

The maxim “qui facit per alium facit per se” serves as the foundation for vicarious liability, where one party is held accountable for the wrongful actions of another. It is a principle that guides the rule of evidence in legal cases. When it comes to wilful misconduct or torts causing harm to others during the performance of their duties, masters and corporations are responsible for the actions of their employees. 

The same principle applies to partners in a partnership, where both individuals can be held liable for each other’s wrongful acts in the ordinary course of business. These parties are known as joint tortfeasors and share joint and several liabilities.

The qui facit per alium facit per se maxim is particularly important in the law of agency, as it establishes that the authorized actions of an agent are considered equivalent to the acts of the principal in legal proceedings. The concept of “respondent superior” holds that the principal’s liability is based on the master-servant relationship rather than the agency arrangement itself. 

The maxim applies to all actions undertaken by the agent within the apparent scope of their authority but does not extend to actions performed by an agent’s own agent. The liability of the master or principal is determined not by the necessity or purpose of the act but by its unlawfulness and the scope of employment or agency.

In India, Article 300 of the Constitution states that the Government of India or a State can be sued for the tortious actions of its employees. However, previous court decisions indicate that the government’s liability in such cases exists only for acts of a sovereign nature.

Is the maxim qui facit per alium facit per se applicable in criminal cases?

No, the maxim “qui facit per alium facit per se” is not applicable in criminal cases. This legal principle primarily pertains to civil liability and the concept of vicarious liability, where one party is held responsible for the wrongful actions of another. It establishes that the principal or master is deemed to have committed the act themselves when their agent or servant performs it.

In criminal cases, however, the principles of individual criminal responsibility and the requirement of proving intent or mens rea typically apply. Each person is generally held accountable for their own criminal actions, and the actions of others cannot be attributed to them solely based on the principle of “qui facit per alium facit per se.” Criminal liability is based on personal culpability and involvement in the criminal offence rather than a vicarious relationship.

Why Should Be A Master Held Liable?

There are several justifications for holding a master responsible for the torts committed by their servant in the course of their business.

One historical justification of the maxim “qui facit per alium facit per se” is rooted in the servant’s status, which historically had traces of servitude and slavery. During the emancipation period, the notion that a servant’s identity was intertwined with that of their master persisted. The legal basis for holding the master liable relied on the owner’s authority over the servant and the fact that the servant had limited legal standing. This historical context influenced the application of the maxim.

Another argument is that there needs to be a remedy available to those who have the means to afford the damages. The master, being in a superior financial position compared to the servant, is seen as better equipped to bear the responsibility and compensate the injured party.

Additionally, holding the master liable encourages the exercise of discretion and prudence in selecting and supervising servants. The master is expected to carefully choose individuals capable of carrying out their assigned duties, as they can be held accountable for any wrongdoing their servants commit. This fosters a sense of responsibility and accountability in the master’s role.

These justifications of the maxim “qui facit per alium facit per se”, including historical context, financial capability, and the importance of careful selection and supervision of servants, contribute to the rationale behind holding a master responsible for the torts committed by their servant.

Cases Related with qui facit per alium facit per se

H E Nasser Abdulla Hussain Vs Dy. City

In the case of H E Nasser Abdulla Hussain Vs Dy. City, the Indian judiciary applied the maxim “qui facit per alium facit per se.” Here are the details:

Facts: 

The case involved an assessee who was engaged in training and racing of racehorses. The assessee received payments from individuals who had agreed to provide facilities for this purpose. However, much of the work was not personally performed by the assessee. 

The assessee incurred a loss in the maintenance and upkeep of the racehorses during the assessment period and filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for the loss resulting from head running. The assessing officer disallowed the claim, and the commissioner upheld this decision.

Judgment: 

The court determined that the assessee was maintaining the Bin Hussein Stud Farm for horse upkeep. The assessee had made the necessary payments for maintenance. Therefore, it was concluded that the assessee had kept the horses in good condition and had fulfilled the requirements of section 74A(3) of the Income Tax Act of 1995. 

The revenue authorities had misinterpreted the term “maintained by him”, as stated in the section. Consequently, the Bombay High Court directed the assessment officer to apply section 74A of the Act to the assessee.

Reasoning: 

The court applied the principle of “qui facit per alium facit per se” in this case. The relevant factors were the payment made by the assessee to the assessor and the fact that the actions were within the scope of employment. Based on these circumstances, the court found the maxim applicable and relied on it in its decision.

Deo Narain a Rai and Anr. Vs Kukur Bind and Ors

In the case of Deo Narain a Rai and Anr. Vs Kukur Bind and Ors., the Indian judiciary applied the maxim “qui facit per alium facit per se.” Here are the details:

Facts: 

The appellants filed a complaint against the respondent, Mr Kukur Bind, seeking recovery of an amount of Rs 381 and possession of certain mortgaged property based on a mortgage deed dated August 25, 1896. 

However, it was noted that Mr Kukur Bind did not sign the deed, and his signature was not visible. Instead, a patwari named Shiunaudan Lal had signed on his behalf. It was revealed that Mr Kukur Bind was illiterate and unable to write his own name, and thus he had allowed the patwari to sign on his behalf.

Judgment: 

The Allahabad High Court ruled that Section 59 of the Property Transfer Act did not require the signature of the mortgage owner, as when the signature is made on a mortgage document by another person, it is considered as the signature of the mortgage owner for the purpose of forming a valid mortgage. 

The court further directed that the case be referred back to the Court of First Instance for judgment and that the subsequent court decrees be set aside.

Reasoning:

The court relied on the maxim “qui facit per alium facit per se” in this case. It was believed that when someone performs an act in the presence of another person, it is deemed as if they have performed it themselves. 

Therefore, the signature of the mortgage agent was deemed appropriate. In common law, when a person allows someone else to sign on their behalf, the signature is considered that of the person who authorized it. Hence, the court applied this maxim in its reasoning.

Conclusion

The “qui facit per alium facit per se” principle explores the concept of “liability by relation.” In simpler terms, it means that a person can be held responsible for someone else’s actions if there is a certain relationship between them. 

This principle acknowledges that even if an individual personally didn’t commit the act, they can still be accountable due to their connection with the responsible party. Understanding this principle is crucial in grasping the legal implications of shared responsibility and the potential consequences it can have in various situations.