Vicarious Liability in Tort

In India, Vicarious Liability in Tort refers to a legal concept in which an individual or entity is held responsible for the tortious acts committed by another person. The concept of vicarious liability in tort is based on the principle of “respondeat superior” which means “let the master answer” in Latin. 

This principle holds that the employer is responsible for the actions of his/her employees or agents, who are acting within the scope of their employment or agency. This principle is important as it provides a means of holding an employer accountable for the acts of his/her employees, who may cause harm to others.

Meaning of Vicarious Liability in Tort

Under Indian law, vicarious liability in tort refers to a situation in which an employer is held responsible for the tortious acts committed by his/her employees. The term “tort” refers to any civil wrong that causes harm or injury to another person, and the term “vicarious liability” refers to the legal responsibility that an employer has for the actions of his/her employees.

For example, if an employee of a company causes injury to someone while performing his/her duties, the company may be held liable for the employee’s actions, even if the company did not directly cause the harm. The reason for this is that the employee was acting within the scope of his/her employment, and the company has a legal obligation to ensure that its employees act in a responsible manner.

Relations in which Vicarious Liability arises

Vicarious liability in tort arises in specific relationships where one party (the employer or principal) is held responsible for the tortious acts committed by another party (the employee or agent). These relationships include:

Employer-Employee Relationship

Under the doctrine of vicarious liability, an employer can be held responsible for the tortious acts of its employees. For example, if an employee of a company negligently causes an accident while driving a company vehicle, the company may be held liable for any resulting damages. This is because the employee was acting within the scope of their employment at the time of the accident.

Principal-Agent Relationship

Similar to an employer-employee relationship, a principal can be held liable for the tortious acts committed by their agent. An agent is someone who acts on behalf of the principal and is authorized to do so. For example, if an agent of a real estate company commits fraud while representing the company in a transaction, the company may be held liable for the agent’s actions.

Partnership Relationship

In a partnership, each partner can be held vicariously liable for the tortious acts committed by their fellow partners. This means that if one partner commits a tort while acting on behalf of the partnership, all partners may be held responsible for any resulting damages.

Parent-Child Relationship

In certain circumstances, a parent can be held vicariously liable for the tortious acts committed by their child. For example, if a minor child causes a car accident while driving a family vehicle, the parent who owns the vehicle may be held responsible for any resulting damages.

Independent Contractor Relationship

In general, an employer is not held vicariously liable for the tortious acts committed by an independent contractor. This is because an independent contractor is not an employee and is generally considered to be operating as a separate business entity.

Conditions for Vicarious Liability in Tort

In order for vicarious liability in tort to apply, certain conditions must be met. These conditions include:

Employer-Employee or Principal-Agent Relationship

As mentioned earlier, vicarious liability in tort arises in specific relationships where one party is held responsible for the tortious acts committed by another party. This includes employer-employee or master-servant and principal-agent relationships. 

It is important to note that the relationship must be a legal one, meaning that the employee or agent must be working under a contract or agreement with the employer or principal.

Tortious Act Committed Within the Scope of Employment or Agency

The tortious act committed by the employee or agent must have been committed within the scope of their employment or agency. This means that the act must have been done while the employee or agent was performing their duties or acting on behalf of the employer or principal. 

If the act was committed outside the scope of employment or agency, the employer or principal may not be held liable.

Connection Between the Tortious Act and the Employment or Agency

There must be a connection between the tortious act and the employment or agency. This means that the act must have been committed in furtherance of the employer’s or principal’s business or interests. 

For example, if an employee is tasked with making deliveries for a company and causes an accident while driving a company vehicle, the employer may be held liable because the accident occurred while the employee was performing duties related to the employer’s business.

No Personal Motive on the Part of the Employee or Agent

The tortious act committed by the employee or agent must not have been done for personal reasons or motives. 

For example, if an employee commits a theft during work hours but the theft was not related to the employer’s business, the employer may not be held liable.

Exceptions to Vicarious Liability in Tort

While vicarious liability in tort is a well-established legal doctrine, there are certain exceptions where an employer or principal may not be held liable for the tortious acts committed by an employee or agent. These exceptions include:

Frolic and Detour

If an employee engages in an activity that is outside the scope of their employment or agency, the employer may not be held liable for any resulting tortious acts. This is known as the “frolic and detour” exception. For example, if an employee is tasked with making deliveries for a company and, during the course of their duties, takes a personal detour to run errands, any tortious acts committed during the detour may not be the responsibility of the employer.

Intentional Torts

Generally, employers or principals are not held liable for intentional torts committed by their employees or agents. This includes acts such as assault, battery, and defamation. However, if the employer or principal knew or should have known about the employee’s propensity for such behavior, they may still be held liable.

Independent Contractors

As previously mentioned, an employer or principal is generally not held vicariously liable for the tortious acts committed by an independent contractor. However, there are exceptions to this rule, such as when the contractor is engaged in inherently dangerous activities or when the employer or principal has retained control over the contractor’s work.

Acts Outside the Course of Employment or Agency

If an employee or agent commits a tortious act outside the course of their employment or agency, the employer or principal may not be held liable. For example, if an employee gets into a fight with a stranger while on a lunch break, any resulting tortious acts would likely be outside the scope of employment and therefore not the responsibility of the employer.

Acts of a Borrowed Servant

When an employee is borrowed or loaned to another employer, the borrowing employer may be held liable for any tortious acts committed by the employee while under their control. This is known as the “borrowed servant” rule. However, if the employee is under the control of their original employer, that employer would still be held liable for any resulting tortious acts.

Tests for determining the master-servant relationship

Determining whether a master-servant relationship exists is crucial in determining whether vicarious liability in tort applies. Courts have developed several tests to determine whether a master-servant relationship exists, including:

Hire and Fire Test

The hire and fire test is a common law test used to determine whether a master-servant relationship exists. Under this test, if an employer has the power to hire and fire an employee, the employer is considered the master and the employee is considered the servant. The rationale behind this test is that the power to hire and fire an employee implies a level of control over the employee’s work.

This test is relatively simple, but it may not be determinative in all cases. 

For example, an employer may hire an independent contractor for a specific project but not have the power to fire them until the project is completed. In such cases, the hire and fire test would not establish a master-servant relationship.

Direction and Control Test

The direction and control test is another common law test used to determine whether a master-servant relationship exists. Under this test, a master-servant relationship exists if the employer has the right to direct and control the employee’s work. This includes the ability to give instructions, the power to supervise the work, and the authority to determine the methods and procedures used in performing the work.

The direction and control test is often used in cases where the employee is an independent contractor. In such cases, the employer may not have the power to hire and fire the contractor, but they may still have the ability to direct and control their work. 

For example, an employer may hire an independent contractor to paint a house but provide detailed instructions on the type of paint to use, the colour scheme, and the time frame for completion. In such cases, the employer would be considered the master, and the independent contractor would be considered the servant.

Multiple Test

The test for distinguishing between a contract of service and a contract for service involves determining whether an individual is an employee or an independent contractor. In Ready Mixed Concrete v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1968) 2 QB 497, the court laid out three conditions that must be met for a contract of service to exist:

• The worker agrees to provide their skills and work to the employer in exchange for wages or other compensation.
• The worker agrees to be subject to a certain degree of control by the employer in the performance of their work, indicating a master-servant relationship.
• The other provisions of the contract must be consistent with the notion of a contract of service.

This same test was reaffirmed in The Management of Indian Bank v. The Presiding Officer.

Other important factors may also be considered when determining the master-servant relationship, including who owns the tools used in the work, whether the employee is paid on a daily or monthly basis, and other relevant factors.

Respondeat Superior

The doctrine of respondeat superior is the most common way in which the liability of a master arises. Respondeat superior means “let the master answer.” Under this doctrine, a master is held liable for the torts committed by a servant if the tort was committed in the course of the servant’s employment. 

This is also known as the “course of employment” test. If the tort was committed outside the course of employment, the master will not be liable.

Various ways in which the liability of Master arises

In all of these scenarios, the master may be held liable under the doctrine of vicarious liability in tort, as long as the wrongful act was committed by the servant in the course of their employment. 

Wrong done as a natural consequence of an act by Servant for Master with due care

Under this scenario, the master may be held liable for the wrongful act of their servant if the act was done in the course of employment and in a careful manner, but still resulted in harm to a third party. 

For example, if a delivery driver who was driving carefully and within the speed limit accidentally hits a pedestrian while making a delivery, the master may be held liable for the harm caused to the pedestrian. This is because the driver was acting in the course of employment, even though they were being careful.

Wrong due to Negligence of Worker

If the servant was negligent in their actions, and this negligence caused harm to a third party, the master may be held liable for the harm caused. For example, if a construction worker was negligent in securing a scaffold, and the scaffold collapses and injures a pedestrian, the employer may be held liable for the harm caused by their employee’s negligence.

Wrong by excess or mistaken execution of a lawful authority

Under this scenario, the master may be held liable if the servant exceeded their lawful authority, or if they mistakenly executed their lawful authority in a manner that caused harm to a third party. 

For example, if a security guard uses excessive force to apprehend a shoplifter, and the shoplifter is injured as a result, the employer may be held liable for the harm caused by their employee’s excessive use of force.

Wrong committed willfully by a servant with the intention of serving the purpose of the master

If the servant committed a wrongful act with the intention of serving the purpose of the master, the master may be held liable for the harm caused. 

For example, if a security guard is instructed by their employer to forcibly remove a peaceful protester from a public space, and the guard uses excessive force and injures the protester, the employer may be held liable for the harm caused by the employee’s willful act.

Wrong by Servant’s Fraudulent Act

If the servant commits a fraudulent act in the course of their employment, the master may be held liable for the harm caused. 

For example, if a bank teller embezzles money from a customer’s account, the bank may be held liable for the harm caused by their employee’s fraudulent act.

Independent contractor

An independent contractor is a person who provides services to a business or individual as a self-employed individual, rather than as an employee. Independent contractors are typically hired to perform a specific job or task, and are not subject to the same level of control and supervision as an employee.

Vicarious liability typically does not apply to independent contractors, as they are not considered employees of the hiring party. Rather, independent contractors are responsible for their own actions and are generally liable for any harm or damages they cause while performing their work.

However, there are some situations where an employer may still be held vicariously liable for the actions of an independent contractor. For example, if the employer provides inadequate supervision or training to the independent contractor, or if the employer directs the independent contractor to perform a task that results in harm to a third party, the employer may be held liable for the contractor’s actions.

Additionally, if an employer holds out an independent contractor as its own employee, the employer may be held liable for the contractor’s actions under the doctrine of “apparent authority.” This occurs when a third party reasonably believes that the contractor is an employee of the employer, based on the employer’s actions or representations.

Conclusion

Vicarious liability in tort arises when specific conditions are met, including the existence of an employer-employee or principal-agent relationship, the tortious act is committed within the scope of employment or agency, a connection between the act and the employer’s or principal’s business, and no personal motive on the part of the employee or agent.