Respondeat superior

An employer is liable for wrongs committed by an employee in the course of employment. It is the rule behind vicarious liability.

1. There is a master and servant relationship.
2. The servant committed a tort.
3. The tort was committed in the course of employment.

• Limpus v. London General Omnibus Co. (1862), England: a bus driver raced another bus, against orders, and caused an accident. Held: the company was liable because the driver was doing his job, though in a wrong way.
• State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati (1962), Supreme Court: a government driver negligently knocked down a pedestrian. Held: the State was liable for the driver's negligence.

The master is not liable if the servant's act was entirely outside the course of employment.

Always state the two tests: relationship of master and servant, and course of employment.

The master pays for the servant's slip at work.

An employer answers for torts of employees done in the course of employment.