Vicarious Liability — MCQs

All questions with answers and explanations

Read the full set here, or use the practice card above to test yourself one question at a time.

1. The maxim underlying vicarious liability is:

   • Res ipsa loquitur
   • Qui facit per alium facit per se (correct answer)
   • Volenti non fit injuria
   • Actio personalis moritur cum persona

   Explanation. Qui facit per alium facit per se ('he who acts through another acts himself') captures the basis of vicarious liability.

2. Vicarious liability is imposed on an employer:

   • Only if the employer was personally negligent
   • Without any personal fault, based purely on the relationship (correct answer)
   • Only for acts done outside working hours
   • Only where a written contract of employment exists

   Explanation. Vicarious liability arises purely from the employer-employee relationship, without requiring personal fault on the employer's part.

3. Two essentials must be satisfied for vicarious liability: a relationship of control, and:

   • The act must be done in the course of employment (correct answer)
   • The employee must have a written contract
   • The act must cause property damage only
   • The employer must have been present at the scene

   Explanation. Vicarious liability requires both a relationship of control and an act done in the course of employment.

4. An unauthorised but negligent mode of doing an authorised act:

   • Takes the employee outside the course of employment
   • Still falls within the course of employment (correct answer)
   • Automatically ends the employment relationship
   • Is always treated as a 'frolic of his own'

   Explanation. An unauthorised or negligent mode of doing an authorised act still falls within the course of employment.

5. In Century Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Northern Ireland Road Transport Board (1942), the employer was held liable because the driver's negligent smoking:

   • Was a wholly personal errand
   • Was a negligent way of doing the assigned job of transferring fuel (correct answer)
   • Happened outside working hours
   • Was authorised in writing

   Explanation. Smoking while doing the assigned job was a negligent mode of performing that job, not an abandonment of it.

6. The 'frolic of his own' doctrine, illustrated in Joel v. Morison (1834), refers to:

   • Any negligent act by an employee
   • Conduct so unconnected with duties that it is not a mode of doing the employer's work (correct answer)
   • A defence available only to independent contractors
   • An exception found only in Indian law

   Explanation. A 'frolic of his own' is conduct so disconnected from actual duties that it cannot be regarded as a mode, however improper, of doing the employer's work.

7. As a general rule, a person who engages an independent contractor:

   • Is always vicariously liable for the contractor's torts
   • Is generally not vicariously liable for the contractor's torts (correct answer)
   • Is liable only if the contractor is a relative
   • Cannot ever be held liable, even for non-delegable duties

   Explanation. The general rule is no vicarious liability for an independent contractor's torts, subject to specific exceptions like non-delegable duties.

8. In Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. (1977), the Supreme Court held the employer liable because:

   • The driver was acting within the course of employment when negligent (correct answer)
   • The driver was an independent contractor
   • The victim consented to the risk
   • The company had no control over the driver

   Explanation. The driver's negligent act occurred while doing the very work assigned, within the course of employment.

9. Under partnership law, a partner's liability for a co-partner's tort committed in the ordinary course of business is:

   • None at all
   • Joint and several with the firm (correct answer)
   • Only if the partner personally participated
   • Limited to the partner's capital contribution

   Explanation. Every partner is jointly and severally liable, along with the firm, for a co-partner's tort in the ordinary course of business.

10. The doctrine of common employment, once a defence for employers, was:

    • Strengthened by the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act, 1948
    • Abolished in England and displaced in India by workmen's compensation legislation (correct answer)
    • Never recognised anywhere
    • Still a complete defence in India today

    Explanation. The doctrine was abolished in England by statute in 1948 and displaced in India by workmen's compensation legislation.