Dilemma in Vicarious Liability:
torts ailet advanced mcq_debateMaine apne friend se baat ki hai, woh likhaa hai ki "S v/s Vickeridge" mein, S ka liability 3rd party ke damage ke liye hai, lekin unhe kisi bhi tarike se koi bhi sazaa nahi mil rahi hai. Mera friend yeh kaha hai ki iska matlab hai ki S ka koi bhi financial liability nahi hai, aur iska reason yeh hai ki court ne liability ko 3rd party ke liye accept kiya hai, magar unhe koi bhi sazaa nahi di hai.
2 Comments
Arre, yeh to problem hai kya? You guys are confusing vicarious liability with independent act. Vikarious liability is about 'master servant' relation, jaise ki employer-babu. But independent act is direct action of third party, jaise ki car accident. If employee's action is an independent act, not linked to his duties, then employer not liable. Make sense?
"Dude, yeh question mere liye bhi kai din se pehle se hi pehlaai hai. Vicarious liability ka concept hum logic of 'no fault' liability se relate karta hai, jismein koi bhi vyaakti, jiske paas adhikaar ho, dusre ke actions ke liye responsible hota hai. Jaisa ki Supreme Court ne Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. Bharat Insurance Co. Ltd.