Mark the best option:
Facts: A fabric trader wanted to travel to Ludhiana to meet his distributors and show them the new stock of fabric. He hired a taxi and drove from Chandigarh to Ludhiana with samples of the new fabric. The trader stopped at a restaurant to grab some lunch. He asked the taxi driver to eat something as well and told him that he would return in ½ hour. The taxi driver took advantage of this opportunity and acting in collusion with some petty thieves, facilitated the stealing of some of the fabric samples by the latter. It was only on the next day that the fabric trader realized that some of his samples were missing. He suspected the taxi driver of carrying out this theft. Eventually, he sued the taxi company for the value of the stolen goods. Decide the case.
Principle: A master is vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of his servant in the course of his employment and which fall within the scope of employment of the servant.
The master is liable since the theft occurred while the trader was using the services of the taxi company
The master is liable since he was responsible for all acts of the driver while the drive was engaged in driving the taxi.
The master is not liable since the theft conducted by the driver was not authorized by the taxi company.
The master is not liable since he is not responsible for wrong acts of the driver which are carried out without his consent
The master is liable since he was responsible for all acts of the driver while the drive was engaged in driving the taxi
The principle of vicarious liability states that an employer is liable for all the acts of his servant when performed in the course of employment. It is irrelevant whether the assigned act was conducted in the right manner or the wrong manner.