A car mechanic was employed by his master, the defendant, to repair cars. He repaired 'a car and then drove the car for a sort distance to check whether he had repaired the car properly or not'. In the process, he caused an accident injuring the plaintiff the master is:

A) Liable because it was his servant who had negligently caused the accident for which he was vicariously liable B) Not liable because the mechanic was supposed to repair only and as such driving by him was outside his course of employment C) Liable because driving was necessarily incidental to the duties of the mechanic since he was duty bound to check by driving whether the repair he had done were correctly done or not D) Not liable because repairing and driving were two distinct acts. And the mechanic was not authorized to drive but duty-bound to repair only

Answer & Solution

Correct Answer: Option C

Let's discuss the solution. Join the discussion

Question posted by Examveda

Community

Join the Discussion

Join the discussion

No comments yet Be the first to discuss this question.

Keep Learning

A car mechanic was employed by his master the defendant to...

A car mechanic was employed by his master, the defendant, to repair cars. He repaired 'a car and then drove the car for a sort distance to check whether he had repaired the car properly or not'. In the process, he caused an accident injuring the plaintiff the master is:

Join the Discussion

Related Questions on Law of Torts