In general, a person is responsible for his own wrongful actions and has no responsibility for the actions done by others. However, in certain cases, vicarious liability may arise, that is, the liability of one person for the act of another person. This is a maxim frequently emphasized in the discussion of the liability of the employer for the act of the employee."
Vicarious liability deals with cases where one person is responsible for the actions of others. Thus, employers are indirectly liable for torts committed by their employees during their employment. X will be deemed to have committed the act himself and is thus also responsible for A's act.
When a principal authorizes his agent to perform any act, he becomes liable for the act of such agent provided that the agent performed it in the performance of duties. The liability of the master for the act of his servant is based on the principle of 'respondeat superior', which means 'let the principal be liable'.
Relation
The Delhi High Court held that the Municipal Corporation continues to remain liable for deficient actions even if the same is outsourced to an independent contractor due to mismanagement leading to death or injury to citizens. Finding that the Municipal Corporation remained responsible for the actions (and omissions) of the contractor it had. charged with the task, the Supreme Court announced the doctrine of public law in the following terms-. What has been stated in the defense is that the MCD is not obliged to pay the compensation as it is the obligation of the respondent no. 4, the contractor, who was engaged for the work in question to compensate him.
Respondent no. 4's position is that even if the accident had occurred, if in the end, if a liability is resolved, it must be remedied by the subcontractor. The question that arises for consideration is whether the shifting of liability would deny the wife of the deceased, whose suit has been brought by the deceased. The provision thus casts a responsibility on the Commissioner of MCD. evincible, the company has admitted in its counter affidavit that respondent no.4 did not fix the barricades or any.
Mercury accepted the lawsuit. defendant no. 4, that the contractor was responsible for the work he engaged and that the expected measures were taken. It is true that the MCD has authority to act under the contract against the respondent no. 4, but the fact remains whether he can plead that he has not. liability to pay any compensation to the wife of the deceased when the facts are clear. /s Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. when the act is committed by the driver in the course of employment or under the direction of the master, the responsibility of the master.
An employee and an independent contractor are both employed to do some work for the employer, but there is a difference in the legal relationship that the employer has with them. The employer's liability for the tort committed by his servant is more onerous than his liability in relation to the wrong servant is more onerous than his liability in relation to the tort committed by an independent contractor. The wrongful act of the servant is also considered to be the act of the master.
The doctrine of liability of the master for the act of his servant is based on the maxim respondeat superior, which means 'let the principal be liable' and it places the master in the same position as if he had done the act himself. The reason for the maxim respondeat superior seems to be the better position of the master to meet the demand. because of its larger pocket and also the ability to transfer the burden of liability through insurance. And independent contractor is one "who undertakes to produce a given result, but so that in the actual exclusion of the work he is not under the command or control of the person for whom he does it, and can exercise his own discretion in things use. not specified in advance.”.
It is not necessary for the employer to prove that he exercised control over the employee's work. If someone hires an independent contractor to do work on their behalf, they are not ordinarily liable for any torts committed by them. liable for any tort committed by the contractor during the performance of the work.
STATE LIABILITY
The legal regime governing the liability of the State for the tortious acts of its employees is based on A.300 of the Constitution of India. 300(1) allows suits to be instituted by and against the Government of India or the Government of a State on behalf of the Union of India or the State respectively. 300(1) defines the extent of such responsibility by placing responsibility on the Government of India and the Government of any State to the same extent as the responsibility of the Dominion of India and the respective provinces or the respective Indian States.
The result of this constitutional position is that the extent of responsibility of the Government of India and the Government of each State is defined by. S 65, Government of India Act 1858: "The Secretary of State in Council shall and may sue and be sued both in India and in England under the name of Secretary of State in Council as a body corporate; and all persons and bodies. The question was whether the Secretary of State would be liable for the negligence of the workmen.
The Supreme Court's decision in State of Rajasthan v. Vidhyawati AIR 1962 SC 933 was one of the first decisions on the issue of state liability for wrongful acts of public servants after the Constitution came into force. The Supreme Court did not follow the judgment in the Vidhyawati case as it distinguished this judgment on the basis of the facts involved. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled that state liability for wrongful acts of public officials would not arise if the tort in question was committed by the public official while on duty “in the exercise of legal functions relating to and ultimately based on the delegation of the sovereign powers of the state.” This broad formulation of the definition of sovereign functions resulted in a substantial expansion of the scope of sovereign immunity.
The Supreme Court, after comparing the position of the Gujarat government to that of a mayor, held that the Gujarat government was liable for tortious acts of public servants such as the police. The Supreme Court held that the state was vicariously liable for the negligence of its officials. The State was vicariously liable for the negligence of its officers in complying with the provisions of the statute. First Report of the Law Commission of India (1956) The Law Commission of India (“LCI”) in its first report recognized the uncertainty that existed as to the liability of the State for the torts of its servants.
The decision of the Madras High Court in Hari Bhanji was upheld by the Commission laying down the correct position on the extent of State liability. In India, the immunity enjoyed by the erstwhile East India Company in respect of acts performed by it as a delegate of the Crown in India was changed to a similar sovereign immunity for the Government of India in respect of its sovereign functions. The Supreme Court has often reiterated the need for comprehensive legislation dealing with the tortious liability of the state and its instrumentalities.
The main proposal of the ZCI was that the vicarious liability of the state would be similar in scope to that of a private employer, with some exceptions. Consequently, the defenses available to the private employer must also be available to the State. a) Responsibility of the state in general. a) Responsibility of the state in general.
