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?
पर्याय
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: Nothing is an offense if it is done under intoxication and the person committing the offense was incapable to understand the nature of the Act. Intoxication should be without the knowledge or against the will of the person.
Facts: A, B and C were having a party in Bar where A persuaded B and C to take alcoholic drinks. On the persistent persuasion B and C also consumed alcohol along with A. B and C had never consumed alcohol before. After intoxication, there was some argument between B and C where C pushed B with full force causing serious injury to B.
Principles:
- An independent contractor is one who is employed to do some work of his employer. He is engaged under a contract for services. He undertakes to produce a given result, and in the actual execution of the work, he is not under the direct control or following directions of his employer. He may use his own discretion in execution of the work assigned.
- In general, an employer is not liable for the torts (wrongful acts) of his independent contractor. But, the employer may be held liable if he directs him to do some careless acts.
Facts: Ramesh hired a taxicab to go to Delhi Airport. As he started late from his home, he kept on urging the taxidriver to drive at a high speed and driver followed the directions; and ultimately due to high speed an accident took place causing injuries to a person.
Principle: Consent is a good defence for civil action in tort. But consent must include both knowledge of risk and assumption of risk, i.e, readiness to bear harm.
Facts: A lady passenger was aware that the driver of the cab, in which she opted to travel was little intoxicated. The cab met with an accident and lady got injured.
Legal Principle: Parents are not liable for wrongs committed by their children unless they provide the opportunity for such wrongful acts to be committed by their children.
Fact Situation: Sunil, a minor, takes the keys to his father’s car from the tabletop where his father keeps it, drives the car on the public road and hits a pedestrian who gets injured.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
Torts are grounded in the concept of
PRINCIPLE Res ipsa loquitur reverses the burden of proof, creating a rebuttable presumption of the guilt of the defendant in situations where the default of the defendant seems apparent.
FACTS X, a truck driver, crashed into Y for no fault of his while trying to save Z, a student who was loitering in school uniform. Based on the facts above, Y inquires the presumption of negligence shall be in favour of
PRINCIPLE The Right to private defence entitles you the licence of force in the failure of other options to the extent of harm faced and proportionate resistance likewise.
FACTS X had a snake farm where he used to ·extract venom from the snakes and sell them for medicinal uses. One such neutralised snake entered into Y's property and into his child's nursery. On being tried to be removed the snake got aggravated and was therefore killed by Y's servant. In a suit brought by X against Y.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE An occupier is not normally liable to a trespasser except in respect of a wilful act intended to cause him harm or done with reckless disregard.
FACTUAL SITUATION Tony, a Richman, had kept a ferocious dog to guard his house. He strictly instructed all his servants not to go near the dog. Further, a special handler was hired to take care of the dog. Visitors were warned by a prominent warning signboard about this dog.
One day, a 13 years old boy playing in the neighbourhood, running after his ball got into the house. The dog attacked him and kill him, Tony was sued for damages.
Principle: A person who commits an unlawful act towards another which can be imputed to him, must repair the damage which the other person suffers as a consequence thereof.
Facts: Mr. Rajender Singh was riding his scooter on the right side of the road which is illegal as per the Traffic Rules. Mr. Rajesh Chawla was driving his car in the opposite direction. The two vehicles collided and resulted in loss of Rs. 50,000/- to Mr. Rajender Singh. This includes his medical expenses and damage to the scooter. In this accident, there is no fault on the part of Mr. Rajesh Chawla.
Given below is a Statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principle:
1. No-fault liability means the liability of a person even without any negligent act on his part and even if he has taken due care and caution.
2. If a person brings and keeps any dangerous thing on his land, then he is liable for any damage caused if the thing escapes.
3. No one can be penalized for an Act of God which is unforeseeable and unpredictable.
Factual Situation: B Owned and managed a company supplying electricity to the nearby locality. On a particular windy and stormy day, one of the wires snapped and was hanging down A, a cyclist who was driving in the night, saw the wire from a distance. There was a nearby street light with low visibility. He came in contact with the wire and was electrocuted immediately. His heirs sued A on the ground of strict liability. Decide. DECISION:
