Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The principle of *respondeat superior* – “let the master answer” – forms the bedrock of vicarious liability in tort law. This principle holds a principal liable for the torts committed by his servant, provided the tort is committed within the scope of employment. However, this liability is not absolute. Several exceptions exist where the principal is absolved of responsibility. These exceptions are crucial in ensuring fairness and preventing undue burden on principals for actions beyond their control or reasonable anticipation. This answer will comprehensively discuss the circumstances under which a principal is not liable for the torts of his servant, drawing upon established legal principles and case law.
General Rule: Principal’s Liability for Servant’s Torts
Generally, a principal is liable for the torts committed by his servant if the servant is acting within the scope of his employment. This stems from the control the principal exercises over the servant. The rationale is that the principal benefits from the servant’s work and should therefore bear the responsibility for the risks associated with it. However, this rule is subject to several exceptions.
Exceptions to Principal’s Liability
1. Servant Acting Outside the Scope of Employment
The most common exception arises when the servant acts outside the scope of their employment. This includes acts that are a purely personal pursuit, unauthorized deviations from the employer’s instructions, or acts that are fundamentally inconsistent with the nature of the employment.
- Example: If a delivery driver, while on duty, decides to take a significant detour to visit a friend and causes an accident during this personal errand, the employer is unlikely to be held liable.
- Case Law: Joel v Morrison (1868) LR 3 QB 540 established that the act must be within the authorized scope of employment for the principal to be liable.
2. Servant Acting on a Frolic of His Own
A ‘frolic’ is a significant departure from the employer’s business, representing a complete abandonment of the employer’s control. It’s a more extreme version of acting outside the scope of employment.
- Example: A bus conductor using the bus for a joyride after completing his route would be considered a frolic.
- Case Law: Hymans v. Peel (1955) 1 WLR 235 illustrates this principle, where a petrol station owner was not liable for the actions of an assistant who fraudulently sold petrol to a thief.
3. Independent Contractor
A principal is generally not liable for the torts of an independent contractor. The key distinction lies in the degree of control. An independent contractor is not subject to the same level of control as a servant.
- Example: Hiring a plumber to fix a leak. The homeowner is not liable if the plumber negligently damages the property during the repair.
- Exception: Liability can arise if the work is inherently dangerous and the principal failed to take reasonable precautions.
4. Borrowed Servant
If a servant is ‘borrowed’ by another employer, the borrowing employer becomes liable for the servant’s torts during the period of borrowing. The original employer is relieved of liability.
- Example: A company lends an engineer to another company for a specific project. During the project, the engineer commits a tort; the borrowing company is liable.
5. Act of God/Vis Major
The principal is not liable for torts caused by natural forces that are unforeseeable and irresistible. This is a defense based on the impossibility of preventing the harm.
- Example: Damage caused by an earthquake or a sudden, unexpected flood.
6. Willful Wrongful Act of the Servant
If the servant commits a deliberate and malicious act, intending to harm a third party, the principal is generally not liable. This is because such an act is outside the scope of employment and demonstrates a clear disregard for the employer’s interests.
- Example: A security guard intentionally assaulting a customer.
7. Express Prohibition
If the principal expressly prohibits the servant from performing a particular act, and the servant disobeys that prohibition, the principal may not be liable. However, this is not a complete defense; the principal must have clearly communicated the prohibition.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while the principle of *respondeat superior* establishes a strong presumption of liability for a principal regarding their servant’s torts, numerous exceptions exist to ensure fairness and prevent unjust outcomes. These exceptions, ranging from acts outside the scope of employment to willful misconduct, highlight the importance of carefully defining the relationship between principal and servant and the specific circumstances surrounding the tortious act. Understanding these nuances is crucial for both legal practitioners and policymakers in navigating the complexities of vicarious liability.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.