Principles: A servant is one who is employed to do some work for his employer (master). He is engaged under a contract of service. He works directly under the control and directions of his master. · In general, the master is vicariously liable for those torts (wrongful acts) of his servant which are done by the servant in the course of his employment.
Facts: 'M' appointed 'D' exclusively for the purpose of driving his tourist vehicle. 'M' also appointed 'C' exclusively for the purpose of performing the work of a conductor for the tourist vehicle. During one trip, at the end of the journey, 'C', while 'D' was not on the driver's seat, and apparently for the purpose of turning the vehicle in the right direction for the next journey, drove it through the street at high speed, and negligently injured 'P'.
Options
'M' could not be made liable for the act of 'C', as his (C's) act of driving the vehicle was not in the course of his employment.
'M' could be made liable for the act of 'C', as his (C's) act of driving the vehicle was within his scope of employment.
'M' could be made liable for the act of 'C', as 'C' was employed under a contract of service.
'M' is not liable as he was not present at the time of accident.
Solution
'M' could not be made liable for the act of 'C', as his (C's) act of driving the vehicle was not in the course of his employment.
Explanation:
The reasonable conclusion drawn is that M's liability arises only when the wrongdoer is his servant and the servant while doing the wrongful act is in the course of the employment. In the Present reasonable conclusion is M could not be made liable for the act of C, as C's act of driving the vehicle was not in the course of the employment.
