| Principle |
| 1. Master, is liable for the wrongful acts committed by servants, in the course of their employment if third parties suffer damages in consequences. |
| 2. However, the master is not liable if the wrongful act committed by the servant has no connection whatsoever with the servant's contract of employment. |
| 3. If a person by an act lowers the reputation of another in the eye of right thinking people, then the person who suffered loss of reputation can sue for damages. |
| Facts Tiwari is servant of Ajit. On his way to Ajit's house to report for duty, he goes to have a cup of coffee. There he sees Singh and accuses Mr Singh of being a dishonest person. Mr Singh wants to sue Ajit, as Tiwari is Ajit's servant. |
A) Ajit is liable, because Tiwari defamed Singh
B) Ajit is not liable, as the defamation was not in the course of Tiwari's employment
C) Ajit is liable, even though the defamation was not in the course of employment
D) None of the above
Correct Answer: B
Solution :
According to the Law of Torts on vicarious liability in relation to the master-servant relationship and the principles given here. Master is liable for the tortious act of his servant only if it is committed in the course of employment. In this given scenario, Ajit is not liable for the Tiwari's tortious act defaming Mr Singh, because it is not in the course of employment as Tiwari stopped to have a cup of coffee on the way to report for duty.
You need to login to perform this action.
You will be redirected in
3 sec
