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?
Options
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.
Solution
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.
