Question:

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'.

Show Hint

Vicarious liability applies only when the employee is performing duties within the scope of their employment. Actions outside that scope are not covered.
Updated On: Aug 18, 2025
  • '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' is not liable as he was not present at the time of accident.
  • 'M' could not be made liable for the act of 'C', as his (C's) act of driving the vehicle was not within the course of his employment.
  • 'M' could be made liable for the act of 'C', as 'C' was employed under a contract of service.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is C

Solution and Explanation

In this scenario, 'C' was performing his duties as a conductor, but driving the vehicle was not part of his employment. Therefore, even though 'M' had employed 'C' for the task of conducting, 'C' was not acting within the scope of his job when he drove the vehicle. Hence, 'M' cannot be held liable for 'C's actions in this case.


Option (A) 'M' could be made liable for the act of 'C': This is incorrect because 'C' was not acting within his employment scope while driving the vehicle.

Option (B) 'M' is not liable as he was not present at the time of the accident: This is irrelevant. The issue is whether 'C' was performing his duties within the scope of employment, not whether 'M' was present.

Option (D) 'M' could be made liable for the act of 'C': This is incorrect because 'C' was not performing his job duties by driving the vehicle.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0

Questions Asked in CLAT exam

View More Questions