Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
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.
Advertisements
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.
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
Principle: False imprisonment is a tort (wrong) which means the total restraint of a person's liberty without lawful justification.
Facts: A part of a public road had been closed for spectators of a boat race. 'P' wanted to enter but he was prevented by 'D' and other policemen because he had not paid the admission fee. 'P' was able to enter the enclosure by other means but was unable to go where he wanted to go. The policemen refused access to where he wanted to go but allowed him to remain where he was or to go back. 'P' remained within the enclosure and refused to leave. Subsequently, 'P' sued 'D' for false imprisonment.
Mark the best option:
Facts: Manish finds a gold watch lying on the road next to his house. He puts the watch in his pocket and returns home. Has Manish committed theft?
Principle: Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent moves that property in order to take it, is said to commit theft.
The law relating to prisoners of war has been codified by
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principles:
- Private nuisance is a continuous, unlawful and indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over or in connection with it.
- The person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.
- A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would likely to injure his neighbour.
- The foreseeability of the type of damage is a pre-requisite of liability in actions of nuisance.
Factual Situation: During 2011, a European Directive was issued requiring nations of the European Community to establish standards on the presence of Perchloroethene (PCE) in water, which the Kingsland did in 2013. Alfa Water Co. purchased a borehole in 2007 to extract water to supply to the public in Kingsland. In 2014, it tested the water to ensure that it met minimum standards for human consumption and discovered that it was contaminated with an organochlorine solvent (PCE). On investigation, it emerged that the solvent seeped into the soil through the building floor of the Light & Soft Leather Tannery, about 3 miles from the borehole that eventually contaminated the Alfa's borehole. Since the tannery opened in 191 O, until 2007, the solvent it used had been delivered in 40-gallon drums which were transported by forklift truck and then tipped into a sump. Since 2007, solvents had been delivered in bulk and stored in tanks. It was then piped to the tanning machinery. There was no evidence of any spills from the tanks or pipes, and it was concluded that the water had been contaminated by frequent spills under the earlier system. Alfa Water brought a claim against the Tannery on the grounds of nuisance.
Whether the Tannery owners are liable?
When the master is held liable for the wrongful acts of his servant, the liability is
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.
In case the pattadars were compulsorily required to work in the factory for a minimum number of hours every day, then it would be correct to state that:
Principle: Interfering with another's goods in such a way as to deny the latter's title to the goods amounts to conversion and it is a civil wrong.
Facts: Ram went to the bicycle stand to a park his bicycle and he found the stand fully occupied. Ram removed a few bicycles in order to rearrange the stand and make some space for his bicycle. He parked his bicycle properly and put back all the bicycles except the one belonging to Shyam. It was rather negligent on the part of Ram and he was in fact in a hurry to get into his office. Somebody came on the way and took away Shyam's cycle. The watchman of the stand did not take care of it assuming that the cycle was not parked inside the stand. Shyam filed a suit against Ram for conversion.
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.
Principle: Vicarious liability is the liability of the Master or Principal for the tort committed by his servant or agent, provided the tort is committed in the course of employment. The Master or Principal is not liable for private wrongs of the servant/agent.
Facts: 'X' hands over some cash money at his house to 'Y', who is his (X's) neighbour and is also cashier in a bank, to be deposited in A's account in the bank. Instead of depositing the money, 'Y' misappropriates it.
Which of the following statements depicts the correct legal position in this given situation?
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:
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: The occupier of a premise owes a duty of care to all his invitees and visitors.
Factual situation: Lalit was running a dairy from his house. People used a dart of his farm as a shortcut to get to a nearby railway station. Lalit who did not approve of this, put up a notice that “Trespassers will be prosecuted”. However, since a number of these people were also his customers he tolerated them. One day a person who was using this short cut was attacked by a bull belonging to the farm. The injured person filed a suit against him. DECISION:
