Principles on which vicarious liability is based Essay

The philosophical system of vicarious obligation is based on dogmas which can be summed up in the following two proverbs (a) Qui facit per alium facit per se - The aphorism means, he who issues th tetchy another is deemed in deemed in fairness as doing it himself. The quashs responsibility for the servants act had also its origins in this principle. The cogitate is that a person who puts another in his place to do a build of acts in his absence, necessarily leaves to determine, according to the flock that arise, when an act of that class is to be make and trust him for the manner in which it is do consequently he is answerable for the scathe of the person so entrusted either in the manner of doing such(prenominal) an act, or in doing such an act under mountain in which it ought not to have been through with(p) provided what is through is not d angiotensin-converting enzyme from all caprice of the servant but in the course of the employment.(b) Respondeat original - Another maxim usually referred to in this connection is respondeat superior, i.e., the superior must be responsible or let the principal be liable. In such cases not only he who obeys but also he who commands becomes evenly liable. This rule has its origin in the judicial presumption that all acts done by the servant in and about his ascertains business are done by his masters pull up or implied authority and are, in truth, the act of the master. The master is answerable for e really such wrong of the servant as is connected in the course of his service, though no express command or privity is proved. Similarly, a principal and agent are con joinly and severally liable as joint wrong-doers for any tort authorised by the former and committed by the latter.(c) new(a) observe - In recent cadences, 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 cerebratio n of this doctrine is that of expediency and public policy. Salmond has rightly remarked in this connection that thither 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 expressed in imperial beard 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) employed the servants, and cosmos (presumably) better able to make best any damage which may now and again result from the arrangement, is answerable to the world at large for all torts committed by his servant within the scope of it. In the words of Winfield, this may not take on the jurist or the logician, but it believably represents the prevailing stage of legal prospect on the matter and though the approachin g may bring further extensions of vicarious liability, it is inconceivable that a serious suggestion for its abolition will be do so long as the law of tort as we know it ashes alive.1View as multi-pages