Principles on which vicarious liability is based Essay

The dogma of vicarious liability is based on precepts which mass be summed up in the following two aphorisms (a) Qui facit per alium facit per se - The maxim means, he who personations through an new(prenominal) is deemed in deemed in law as doing it himself. The masters responsibility for the servants act had too its origins in this principle. The reasoning is that a person who puts another in his prescribe to do a class of acts in his absence, necessarily leaves to determine, according to the mass that arise, when an act of that class is to be do and trust him for the manner in which it is d mavin consequently he is answerable for the wrong of the person so entrusted either in the manner of doing such an act, or in doing such an act under circumstances in which it ought not to have been done provided what is done is not done from any caprice of the servant unless in the course of the employment.(b) Respondeat superior - Another maxim usually referred to in this connecti on is respondeat superior, i.e., the superior must be responsible or permit the principal be liable. In such cases not only he who obeys scarcely also he who dominations becomes equally liable. This rule has its origin in the legal presumption that all acts done by the servant in and about his masters business are done by his masters express or implied authority and are, in truth, the act of the master. The master is answerable for every such wrong of the servant as is committed in the course of his service, though no express command or privity is proved. Similarly, a principal and agent are jointly and one after another liable as joint wrong-doers for any tort authorised by the former and committed by the latter.(c) Modern view - In recent times, however, the doctrine of vicarious liability is justified on the principle other than that embodied in the above-mentioned maxims. It is now believed that the underlying idea of this doctrine is that of expediency and worldly concern policy. Salmond has rightly remarked in this connection that there is one idea which is found in the judgements from the time of Sir John Holt to that of Lord Goddard, namely, public policy.The view of Lord Pearce can be quoted here with approval, which he show in Imperial Chemical Industries, Ltd v. Shatwell The doctrine of vicarious liability has not grown from any very clear, logical or legal principle but from social convenience and rough justice. The master having (presumably for his own benefit) occupied the servants, and being (presumably) better able to make good any prostitute which may occasionally result from the arrangement, is answerable to the world at bouffant for all torts committed by his servant within the scope of it. In the words of Winfield, this may not satisfy the jurist or the logician, but it probably represents the prevailing stage of legal opinion on the offspring and though the future may bring further extensions of vicarious liability, it is insuf ferable that a serious proposal for its abolition will be make so long as the law of tort as we bash it remains alive.1View as multi-pages