1. Answer the following questions in about 150 words each. Support your answer with relevant legal provisions and judicial pronouncements: (d) Explain the principle of liability of master for the torts committed by his servant. Write case-laws.

Understanding Vicarious Liability in Master-Servant Relationship

Vicarious liability in the master-servant context is governed by two fundamental legal maxims:

• Qui facit per alium facit per se: "He who acts through another acts for himself." This maxim suggests that when a servant performs an act on behalf of the master, the law deems it as if the master himself performed the act.
• Respondeat Superior: "Let the master answer." This principle asserts that the superior (master) should be held responsible for the acts of their subordinate (servant).

Essentials for Establishing Master's Liability

For a master to be held vicariously liable for the torts of a servant, two primary conditions must be met:

1. Existence of Master-Servant Relationship

The first crucial step is to establish a genuine master-servant relationship. This relationship is typically determined by the 'control test,' which assesses whether the master has the right to direct not only what work is to be done but also how it is to be done. Other tests, such as the 'integration test' (whether the worker's services are an integral part of the business) and the 'multiple test' (considering various factors like wages, tools, supervision), are also employed by courts.

• Legal Distinction: It is vital to differentiate between a 'servant' and an 'independent contractor.' A master is generally not liable for the torts of an independent contractor, as the former does not control the manner in which the latter performs the work.

2. Tort Committed in the Course of Employment

This is the most critical condition. The tortious act must have been committed by the servant "in the course of employment." This phrase extends beyond acts expressly authorized by the master and includes acts that are:

• Authorized Acts done in an Unauthorized Manner: Even if the servant performs an authorized act in a negligent, wrongful, or improper way, the master can still be held liable.
• Acts against Express Orders: If a servant disobeys instructions but acts within the general scope of their duties, the master may still be liable.
• Fraudulent or Criminal Acts: In certain circumstances, even fraudulent or criminal acts committed by the servant can make the master liable if there is a sufficiently close connection between the act and the employment.

Relevant Legal Provisions and Judicial Pronouncements

While India does not have a specific codified law for vicarious liability in tort similar to the UK's Crown Proceedings Act, 1947, the principles have evolved significantly through common law and judicial interpretations. The Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (formerly Workmen's Compensation Act), for instance, provides a statutory framework for employer's liability for compensation for injuries arising out of and in the course of employment (Section 3).

Key Indian Case Laws:

• State of Rajasthan v. Mst. Vidhyawati & Anr. (1962): The Supreme Court held the State vicariously liable for the negligent act of its employee (a driver) while driving a government jeep for official duty, establishing the principle that the State is liable for the tortious acts of its servants committed in the course of non-sovereign functions.
• Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. (1977): This case emphasized the "course of employment" criteria, holding the employer liable when a car driver, in the course of his employment, negligently caused an accident.
• State Bank of India v. Shyama Devi (1978): The Supreme Court clarified that if an employee acts outside the scope of their employment and without the employer's knowledge, the employer might be exempt from liability.
• Smt. Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1965): This landmark case distinguished between sovereign and non-sovereign functions of the state, holding that the state is not liable for torts committed by its servants while discharging sovereign functions. However, the scope of "sovereign functions" has been progressively narrowed down by subsequent judgments.

English Case Laws (influential in India):

• Limpus v. London General Omnibus Co. (1862): The company was held liable when its bus driver, despite express orders not to obstruct other omnibuses, deliberately obstructed a rival bus, causing an accident. The court held that the driver's act, though unauthorized, was within the general scope of driving the omnibus.
• Century Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Northern Ireland Road Transport Board (1942): A tanker driver, while transferring petrol, lit a cigarette and threw away the match, causing an explosion. The employer was held liable as the act of lighting a cigarette, though careless, occurred during the course of employment.
• Lister v. Hesley Hall Ltd. (2001): The House of Lords held an employer vicariously liable for sexual abuse committed by a warden against boys under his care, emphasizing a "close connection" test between the employment and the tort.