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?

Show Hint

In vicarious liability cases, always check whether the wrongful act was within the employee’s official duties — if not, the employer is generally not liable.
Updated On: Aug 14, 2025
  • 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.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is D

Solution and Explanation


Step 1: Understanding the legal principle
- The principle of vicarious liability makes an employer liable for wrongful acts of the employee only if they are done in the course of employment.
- Acts done outside the scope of employment, even if during working hours, generally do not make the employer liable.
Step 2: Applying the facts
- Alok was employed as a driver and his duty was to drive Verma to and from destinations.
- Carrying parcels for others was not part of his job and was done without Verma’s knowledge or consent.
- Delivering the parcel was a personal errand and unrelated to Verma’s business.
Step 3: Legal reasoning
- Since the wrongful act (carrying contraband goods) occurred while Alok was engaged in a personal, unauthorized activity, it falls outside the scope of his employment.
- Therefore, Verma cannot be held liable under the principle of vicarious liability.
\[ \boxed{\text{The employer is not liable because the act was outside the course of employment.}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0

Top Questions on Law of Torts

View More Questions

Questions Asked in CLAT exam

View More Questions