respondeat superior
This maxim states the basis of vicarious liability. The employer is liable not because he did wrong but because the servant's act was done in the course of employment, either an authorised act or an unauthorised mode of doing an authorised act. A servant on a “frolic of his own” does not make the master liable. The servant remains personally liable too; the master is a joint tortfeasor.
The rule applies to employees (contract of service), not normally to independent contractors (contract for services). In India it applies to the State as employer: in State of Rajasthan v. Vidhyawati the State was held liable for the rash driving of a Government jeep driver, subject to the defence of sovereign functions, which later cases have narrowed.
Example
The bus driver ran over a pedestrian while on his route, so under respondeat superior the transport corporation was liable.
In Indian law
- State of Rajasthan v. Vidhyawati, 1962 INSC 38: State vicariously liable for its driver's negligence
- Article 300, Constitution of India (suits by and against the State)
See also
vicarious liability · qui facit per alium facit per se · sovereign immunity
Read more in the study notes
- Strict liability and vicarious liability (Jurisprudence)
- Vicarious liability (Law of Torts)