Principle: A master is liable for the wrongful act of his servants committed in the course of employment.
Facts: 'A' employed 'B' to drive his jeep. 'B' took the jeep from the workshop and thereafter, instead of taking the jeep to the garage, went on a spree, and on the way, he gave joy ride to some unauthorized persons. 'B's negligence caused an accident resulting in injuries to all the unauthorized persons in the vehicle. Can they claim damages from 'A'?
A. No. They were not authorized to use the vehicle
B. Yes. They were injured due to the negligence of 'A's servant
C. Yes, bringing jeep from the workshop to the garage was within the course of employment
D. No. Act of going on a spree and giving lift to unauthorized persons was outside the course of employment
Answer: Option D
This Question Belongs to Law >> Law Of Torts
The 'tort of intimidation' was propounded in
A. Winterbottom v. Wright
B. Pasley v. Freeman
C. Winsmore v. Greenbank
D. Rookes v. Barnard
The maxim 'scienti non fit injuria' means
A. Where there is no fault, there is no remedy
B. Mere knowledge does not imply consent to take risk
C. Mere giving consent does not imply to take risk
D. Scientific knowledge is not enough to cause injury
A. Scott v. London & St. Katharine Docks Co.
B. Hedley Byrne Co. Ltd. v. Heller & Partners
C. Derry v. Peek
D. Cann v. Willson
A. Section 82 of the Evidence Act
B. Section 102 of the Evidence Act
C. Section 122 of the Evidence Act
D. Section 124 of the Evidence Act
Join The Discussion