INTERIM SUBMISSION

SUBMITTED BY: DILRAJ SINGH

PRN: 18010224071

DIVISION: B

PROGRAMME: B.B.A LLB

TOPIC: Vicarious liability in the context of Master

Servant Relationship.

INTRODUCTION
The law of Tort has been used for many centuries to protect
rights of people. It gives compensation to the plaintiff by the
defendant one if he is the wrongdoer or violates plaintiff’s
rights. This research project will basically include the tort i.e.
Vicarious liability. It means liability which is incurred for or
instead of another. According to jurist Salmond, in general, the
person is responsible only for his own act, but, there are
exceptional cases, in which the law imposes on him, vicarious
responsibility for the acts of others, however blameless himself.

SYNOPSIS
The doctrine of vicarious liability generally operates within
the law of torts. It has become well established in English law
and historically has been called ‘Master-Servant liability’.

Chief Justice Shaw of the Massachusetts stated in the case of

farewell v. Boston and Worcester Rly. Co. stated that rule is
obviously founded on the principle of social duty so that no
other person may be he is servant or master don’t violate or
infringe the rights of other people. If they do so, they will be
liable for compensate the plaintiff.

In this research project there would be explanation of this

liability, evolution, criticism and remedies of the same.

CASE STUDY

Yewen v Noakes [1880] 6 QBD 530

Facts
There was a statutory exemption for premises which were
occupied by a “servant” or person occupying the premises “for
the protection thereof.” A man and his family occupied a
number of rooms within an office building on the alleged basis
that he was the caretaker of the building owner. The man was a
clerk who was paid a salary of 150 pounds per annum.
Issue
The question arose as to whether the man constituted an
employee of the building owner for the purposes of exempting
the premises from statutory tax duties.
Held
The Court of Appeal held that an employee, or a servant to
adopt the Court’s nomenclature, is defined as a “person who is
subject to the command of his master as to the manner in
which he shall do his work.” (pp 3-4). On the facts of the case,
the Court held that the man was not a “servant” or an
employee of the building owner as the owner had no right to
control the man’s work and manner in which it was done. The
man earned a salary of 150 pounds per annum in his separate
role as a clerk and merely enjoyed residence of the building
with his family members. Thus, he did not constitute an
employee of the building owner for tax purposes.
Limpus vs. London Omnibus and Co.
In this case the driver of the bus in order to overtake another
bus was driving in a very rash and negligent manner and hence
ended up injuring the plaintiff. The catch in this case is such a
tendency was known to the employer and he had prohibited the
driver from doing so.
In this case, it is clearly visible that due to negligence of
servant, master is vicariously liable for the damages of the
plaintiff.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
What is the legal maxim for the vicarious liability?
What does ‘Contract of service’ means?
CONCLUSION
In this research project, I can conclude that with all efforts of
research , I came to know more about Vicarious liability in the
context of master-servant relationship. The legal maxim for
vicarious liability is Qui facit per alium facit per se. ‘Contract of
Service’ means master-servant relationship.