vicarious liability for CLAT - Practice Questions & MCQ

Read the following passage and answer the question.

Since ancient times, it is the rule that a person should be held liable for his own mistake. In the words of Plato: "a person should be held for his own sins". But, in the thirteenth century, in England, it was for the first time, established that the master would be liable for his servant's or slave's torts only when there is an express command of the master to the servant's wrong.

By the end of the 17th century, this concept of liability was found inadequate due to the rise in commercial transactions. A new development took place when Sir John Holt, in the case of Tubewille v Stamp (1697), held that "the master would be liable for his servant's tort if he had given his implied command". There is a maxim 'qui facit per alium facit per se' which means 'he who does an act though another is deemed in law to do it himself, on which the vicarious liability of principal for the tort of his agent is based. Usually, a person is liable for his tortious acts. But if he shares certain types of relationships with another person, that person might be liable for the wrongful act.

A principal is vicariously liable for the tort of his agent committed within the course of his authority. An agent is a person who, otherwise than as a servant and otherwise than as an independent contractor, whether by way of contract or only by way of request, conducts some business or performs some act or series of acts on behalf of another, i.e. principal. The liability of the master for the tort which has been committed by his servant is based on the maxim 'respondent superior' i.e. superior is responsible. In law, it is established that he who employs another to do something does it himself, or he who does an act through another is deemed in law to do it himself.

Question :

Hari hired X to help him with household chores. Hari asked X if he needed his clothes washed and ironed. X didn’t know how to operate the washing machine and due to this electricity supply of the whole locality got disrupted for 2 days. The neighbours claimed damages, according to the passage given to decide who will be liable to pay damages.

Read the following passage and answer the question.

Since ancient times, it is the rule that a person should be held liable for his own mistake. In the words of Plato: "a person should be held for his own sins". But, in the thirteenth century, in England, it was for the first time, established that the master would be liable for his servant's or slave's torts only when there is an express command of the master to the servant's wrong.

By the end of the 17th century, this concept of liability was found inadequate due to the rise in commercial transactions. A new development took place when Sir John Holt, in the case of Tubewille v Stamp (1697), held that "the master would be liable for his servant's tort if he had given his implied command". There is a maxim 'qui facit per alium facit per se' which means 'he who does an act though another is deemed in law to do it himself, on which the vicarious liability of principal for the tort of his agent is based. Usually, a person is liable for his tortious acts. But if he shares certain types of relationships with another person, that person might be liable for the wrongful act.

A principal is vicariously liable for the tort of his agent committed within the course of his authority. An agent is a person who, otherwise than as a servant and otherwise than as an independent contractor, whether by way of contract or only by way of request, conducts some business or performs some act or series of acts on behalf of another, i.e. principal. The liability of the master for the tort which has been committed by his servant is based on the maxim 'respondent superior' i.e. superior is responsible. In law, it is established that he who employs another to do something does it himself, or he who does an act through another is deemed in law to do it himself.

Question :

The principal is vicariously liable for the things done by the agent but the principal is not responsible for the omissions of the agent. The given statement is-

Read the following passage and answer the question.

Since ancient times, it is the rule that a person should be held liable for his own mistake. In the words of Plato: "a person should be held for his own sins". But, in the thirteenth century, in England, it was for the first time, established that the master would be liable for his servant's or slave's torts only when there is an express command of the master to the servant's wrong.

By the end of the 17th century, this concept of liability was found inadequate due to the rise in commercial transactions. A new development took place when Sir John Holt, in the case of Tubewille v Stamp (1697), held that "the master would be liable for his servant's tort if he had given his implied command". There is a maxim 'qui facit per alium facit per se' which means 'he who does an act though another is deemed in law to do it himself, on which the vicarious liability of principal for the tort of his agent is based. Usually, a person is liable for his tortious acts. But if he shares certain types of relationships with another person, that person might be liable for the wrongful act.

A principal is vicariously liable for the tort of his agent committed within the course of his authority. An agent is a person who, otherwise than as a servant and otherwise than as an independent contractor, whether by way of contract or only by way of request, conducts some business or performs some act or series of acts on behalf of another, i.e. principal. The liability of the master for the tort which has been committed by his servant is based on the maxim 'respondent superior' i.e. superior is responsible. In law, it is established that he who employs another to do something does it himself, or he who does an act through another is deemed in law to do it himself.

Question :

The medieval command theory of vicarious liability is justified based on which of the following legal maxim?

Read the following passage and answer the question. 

This legal principle denotes that an individual or entity can be held accountable for the actions of another person, typically within the scope of a relationship where one party has the right, ability or duty to control the activities of the other.A common instance of vicarious liability is in an employer-employee relationship. If an employee causes harm to another while carrying out their duties, the employer could potentially be held liable. This is because the employer has control over the employee's activities during work and thus, indirectly, the consequences of those activities. For example, if a delivery driver negligently crashes into another car while on a delivery, the company could be held vicariously liable for the damage.The rationale behind vicarious liability lies in balancing the scales of justice and promoting safety. By holding employers accountable for their employees' actions, vicarious liability encourages them to enforce stricter safety measures and supervise their employees' conduct more effectively.However, it's worth noting that not all actions of an employee give rise to vicarious liability. 
The misconduct must occur within the 'course and scope' of employment. If the employee's actions were personal or outside the range of their duties, the employer may not be held responsible. Vicarious liability is not limited to employer-employee relationships; it can also arise in other contexts where one party has the right to control the conduct of another. These can include relationships between principals and agents, partners in a partnership, and even parents and their minor children in some jurisdictions. Vicarious liability, therefore, serves as a reminder that the ability to control another's conduct comes with a potential legal responsibility for their actions, encouraging all to exercise this power with care and diligence.

Question : Ms. Johnson, a teacher at Sunny Day School, is involved in a car accident on her way home after school. In this case:

Read the following passage and answer the question. 

This legal principle denotes that an individual or entity can be held accountable for the actions of another person, typically within the scope of a relationship where one party has the right, ability or duty to control the activities of the other.A common instance of vicarious liability is in an employer-employee relationship. If an employee causes harm to another while carrying out their duties, the employer could potentially be held liable. This is because the employer has control over the employee's activities during work and thus, indirectly, the consequences of those activities. For example, if a delivery driver negligently crashes into another car while on a delivery, the company could be held vicariously liable for the damage.The rationale behind vicarious liability lies in balancing the scales of justice and promoting safety. By holding employers accountable for their employees' actions, vicarious liability encourages them to enforce stricter safety measures and supervise their employees' conduct more effectively.However, it's worth noting that not all actions of an employee give rise to vicarious liability. 
The misconduct must occur within the 'course and scope' of employment. If the employee's actions were personal or outside the range of their duties, the employer may not be held responsible. Vicarious liability is not limited to employer-employee relationships; it can also arise in other contexts where one party has the right to control the conduct of another. These can include relationships between principals and agents, partners in a partnership, and even parents and their minor children in some jurisdictions. Vicarious liability, therefore, serves as a reminder that the ability to control another's conduct comes with a potential legal responsibility for their actions, encouraging all to exercise this power with care and diligence.

Question : A babysitter hired by the Smith family accidentally spills hot coffee on a visitor. In this case 

Vicarious liability is usually applicable on