Question

Principle: An independent contractor is one who is employed to do some work of his employer. He is engaged under a contract for services. He undertakes to produce a given result, and in the actual execution of the work, he is not under the direct control or following directions of his employer. He may use his own discretion in execution of the work assigned.
In general, an employer is not liable for the torts (wrongful acts) of his independent contractor. But, the employer may be held liable if he directs him to do some careless acts.
Facts: Ramesh hired a taxi-cab to go to Delhi Airport. As he started 1 ate from his home, he kept on urging the taxi-driver to drive at a high speed and driver followed the directions; and ultimately due to high speed an accident took place causing injuries to a person.

• A. Ramesh would be held liable for damages as he exercised the control by giving directions to the driver.
• B. Ramesh would not be held liable for damages because the driver was an independent contractor and not his servant.
• C. Ramesh would not be held liable for damages because Ramesh did not know the consequences of such rash driving.
• D. Ramesh would not be liable as car was not owned by him.

Hint:

Liability can fall on the employer even in independent contractor situations if the employer’s actions directly lead to harm or injury.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Although the taxi-driver was an independent contractor, Ramesh’s active involvement in instructing and urging the driver to drive at a high speed constitutes an exercise of control over the driver’s actions. The law holds that if an employer directs a careless act that causes injury, he is liable for the consequences. In this case, the employer's direction to drive recklessly led to an accident, and therefore, Ramesh is liable for the damages.


Option (B) Ramesh would not be held liable for damages because the driver was an independent contractor and not his servant: This is incorrect. The principle of liability applies even if the contractor is independent, as Ramesh directed the driver’s actions.

Option (C) Ramesh would not be held liable for damages because Ramesh did not know the consequences of such rash driving: This is incorrect. Ramesh’s involvement in directing the driving speed makes him liable, irrespective of his knowledge of the outcome.

Option (D) Ramesh would not be liable as the car was not owned by him: This is incorrect. Ownership of the car does not absolve the employer from responsibility in directing an unsafe act.