Vicarious Liability Case Study

Introduction

The law of tort has been utilized for a long time to secure personal interests, for example, property, reputation, body and so on. It guarantees justice is done by investigating the claimant’s need for remuneration, which is paid by the respondent who has committed a breach of obligation. The general principle in tort law is that liability is personal, i.e., liability is generally linked to a breach of one’s own duty and a person is liable for the wrongs committed by him only. However, in certain situations, the law holds one individual liable for the mischief brought on by another, due to some legitimately applicable relationship between the two. This is known as the doctrine of vicarious liability.

1.1 What is vicarious liability?

While the historical or jurisprudential origins of this liability are not entirely clear, it has been well entrenched in the common law for centuries. The central features of the doctrine of vicarious liability are four-fold. First, a tort must have been committed by a, it not being enough that A’s actions merely had an adverse impact on the plaintiff. Second, at the relevant time, A must be an employee or agent of B. Third, A’s tort must be committed in the course of A’s employment with B. And finally, the fact that B is also liable for A’s tort does not insulate A from liability i.e. A and B become joint tortfeasors both amenable to suit by the tort victim. These are the central features for which any theory of vicarious liability will have to be able to

An act done for B by A not for himself but for B, with/without the authority of B becomes the act of the principle B if previously/subsequently ratified by B. The person ratifying the act is bound by the act whether it to be his detriment or advantage.

Maxims:

1. Omnis ratihabitio retrorahitur et mandato priori aequiparatur- Every ratification of an act relates back and thereupon becomes equivalent to a previous request.

2. Qui facit per alium facit per se- Any person who authorizes or procures a tort to be committed by another is responsible for that tort as if he had committed it himself. The person authorising is liable not only for the tort actually authorised, but also for its direct consequences.

Following conditions must be satisfied to hold a person liable for the act of another on the ground of ratification.

(a) Only such acts binds the principal, what is done on his behalf.

(b) The person ratifying the act must have knowledge of tortuous and character of the act.

(c) Illegal and void acts cannot be