Liability of the Master for the Acts of his Servant - Vicarious Liability
torts general advanced pyq_discussionEk question thi 2020 mein, jo bahut tricky thi - "A, a shop owner, employed B, a watchman, to look after his shop at night. B, knowing that the shop was not open and that there was no one inside, went inside and intentionally set fire to it, and B was caught. A was insured against fire. A claimed compensation under the policy and was successful, B was convicted for mischief. A was subsequently sued for damages by the Insurance company. Decide whether B, A, or the Insurance company is liable to pay the damages."
Correct approach: first, distinguish between B's intentional act of mischief and his contract of employment with A. Then apply the concept of vicarious liability - is B acting within the scope of his employment? If yes, apply the rule in Lloyds Bank Ltd. v. Bundy [1975].
Bhai, in Vicarious Liability, Master is held liable for the acts of his servant because of their close relationship. Master derives benefits from servant's actions, so it's fair to impose liability on him. However, I think there's a need to clearly define what constitutes a 'servant' - an employee or an independent contractor? If it's the latter, shouldn't Master be held only responsible for situations of actual negligence or breach of contract?