Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Legal Principle: An employer is liable for the act of his servant performed during the course of employment.
Fact Situation: While working as a driver for Verma, Alok sometimes used to earn some side income by carrying parcels for others in Verma’s car without his knowledge or permission. While going to pick Verma from the airport one day, Alok stopped to deliver a parcel he was carrying with him. While he was delivering the parcel, which unknown to him was one of contraband goods, the police arrested Alok.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
विकल्प
Verma is liable for the act of Alok since he is Verma’s driver
Verma is liable for the act of Alok since he had gone to pick Verma from the airport.
Verma is not liable for the act of Alok since Alok himself did not know that he was carrying contraband goods.
Verma is not liable for the act of Alok since carrying the parcel was not in the course of his employment.
Advertisements
उत्तर
Verma is not liable for the act of Alok since carrying the parcel was not in the course of his employment.
Explanation:
Three elements need to be fulfilled to transfer vicarious liability. They are the relationship between employer v employee, the tortuous act of negligence committed, and within the course of employment. Employers to be responsible for the lack of care on the part of employees (to whom the employers owe a duty of care). To apply the respondent superior, the employee's negligence must occur within the scope of their employment. Additionally, it is important to know whether B is an employee of A and also to determine whether B was within the scope of employment when the negligent act was committed.
Although there was an employer-employee relationship between Verma and Alok, Alok was not acting in the scope of his employment when he was delivering the package with contraband goods and was arrested for the same. thus Mr. Verma is not liable for his acts.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Principle: Inducing any animal to move or to change its motion and thereby intentionally causing fear of injury or annoyance to others by such act, is an offence of use of criminal force.
Facts: X incites his dog to chase and run after his neighbour Y, to teach Y to stay away from him. The act is done without neighbour‘ consent and against his will
Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under twelve years of age, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion.
Facts: Himesh, 11 years old boy, picks up a gold ring worth Rs 5000/- lying on a table in his friend's house and immediately sells it for Rs 2000/, and misappropriates the money.
Mark the best option:
In a lawsuit, an action in personam is directed towards –
Legal Principle: No remedy lies in law where an injury is caused to a person without any infringement of his legal right.
Fact Situation: Ashutosh started a tuition Centre right next to the one being run for the past twenty years by Gulshan. After Ashutosh started his Centre, a large number of students shifted from Gulshan’s tuition Centre to Ashutosh’s Centre forcing Gulshan to close down his establishment suffering huge losses. Can Gulshan initiate legal action against Ashutosh?
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
Injuria sine damnum stands for.
PRINCIPLE Vis major or an act of God entails a sudden manoeuvre by elements of nature over which we have no control.
FACTS In a bus accident where the driver died of a sudden cardiac arrest, the legal heirs of the deceased brought a suit against the bus company for not making the driver undergo the mandatory health and fitness test before giving employment. The bus company claims a defence of 'vis major'. The defence of vis major in this case shall
Principle: Trespass to land is the wrongful and unwarranted entry upon the land of another. A purchased a ticket to watch a movie in a theatre. After the show got over, A refused to leave the theatre. The owner of the theatre sues A for trespass
Rules:
A. A person is an employee of another if the mode and the manner in which he or she carries out his work is subject to control and supervision of the latter.
B. An employer is required to provide compensation to his or her employees for any injury caused by an accident arising in the course of employment. The words ‘in the course of the employment’ mean in the course of the work which the employee is contracted to do and which is incidental to it.
Facts:
Messers. Zafar Abidi and Co. (Company) manufactures bidis with the help of persons known as ‘pattadrs’. The pattadars are supplied tobacco and leaves by the Company and are required to roll them into bidis and bring the bidis back to the Company. The pattadars are free to roll the bidis either in the factory or anywhere else they prefer. They are not bound to attend the factory for any fixed number of bidis. The Company verifies whether the bidis adhere to the specified instructions or not pays the pattadars on the basis of the number of bids that are found to be of right quality. Aashish Mathew is one of the pattadars of the Company. He was hit by a car just outside the precinct of the factory while he was heading to have lunch in a nearby food-stall. Aashish Mathew has applied for compensation from the Company.
According to the facts and the rules specified, which of the following propositions is correct
Rules:
A. A person is an employee of another if the mode and the manner in which he or she carries out his work is subject to control and supervision of the latter.
B. An employer is required to provide compensation to his or her employees for any injury caused by an accident arising in the course of employment. The words ‘in the course of the employment’ mean in the course of the work which the employee is contracted to do and which is incidental to it.
Facts:
Messers. Zafar Abidi and Co. (Company) manufactures bidis with the help of persons known as ‘pattadrs’. The pattadars are supplied tobacco and leaves by the Company and are required to roll them into bidis and bring the bidis back to the Company. The pattadars are free to roll the bidis either in the factory or anywhere else they prefer. They are not bound to attend the factory for any fixed number of bidis. The Company verifies whether the bidis adhere to the specified instructions or not pays the pattadars on the basis of the number of bids that are found to be of right quality. Aashish Mathew is one of the pattadars of the Company. He was hit by a car just outside the precinct of the factory while he was heading to have lunch in a nearby food-stall. Aashish Mathew has applied for compensation from the Company.
Select the statement that could be said to be most direct inference from specified facts:
Principle: One has to compensate another for the injury caused due to his wrongful act. The liability to compensate is reduced to the extent the latter has contributed to the injury through his own negligence, This is the underlying principle of contributory negligence.
Facts: Veerappa owns a farm at a distance of half a furlong from the railway track. He stored in his land the stacks of dried up straw after the cultivation as is normal in farming. One day when the train was passing through the track, the driver was negligently operating the locomotive by allowing it to emit large quantities of spark. The high wind, normal in open fields, carried the sparks to the stacks stored by Veerappa and the stacks caught fire thereby causing extensive damage. Veerappa filed a suit against the Railways claiming damages. The Railways while acknowledging liability alleged contributory negligence on the part of Veerappa.
