send mail to support@abhimanu.com mentioning your email id and mobileno registered with us! if details not recieved
Resend Opt after 60 Sec.
By Loging in you agree to Terms of Services and Privacy Policy
Claim your free MCQ
Please specify
Sorry for the inconvenience but we’re performing some maintenance at the moment. Website can be slow during this phase..
Please verify your mobile number
Login not allowed, Please logout from existing browser
Please update your name
Subscribe to Notifications
Stay updated with the latest Current affairs and other important updates regarding video Lectures, Test Schedules, live sessions etc..
Your Free user account at abhipedia has been created.
Remember, success is a journey, not a destination. Stay motivated and keep moving forward!
Refer & Earn
Enquire Now
My Abhipedia Earning
Kindly Login to view your earning
Support
Type your modal answer and submitt for approval
Principles: • A servant is one who is employed to do some work for his employ er (master). He is engaged under a contract of service. He works directly under the control and directions of his master.
• In general, the master is vicariously liable for those torts (wrongful acts) of his servant which are done by the servant in the course of his employment.
Facts: 'M' appointed 'D' exclusively for the purpose of driving his tourist vehicle. 'M' also appointed 'C' exclusively for the purpose of performing the work of a conductor for the tourist vehicle. During one trip, at the end of the journey, 'C', while 'D' was not on the driver's seat, and apparently for the purpose of turning the vehicle in the right direction for the next journey, drove it through the street at high speed, and negligently injured 'P'.
M' could be made liable for the act of 'C', as his (C's) act of driving the vehicle was within his scope of employment.
'M' is not liable as he was not present at the time of accident.
'M' could not be made liable for the act of 'C', as his (C's) act of d riving the vehicle was not in the course of his employment.
'M' could be made liable for the act of 'C', as 'C' was employed nder a contract of service.
M cannot be held liable for the acts of C, because there is not a master servant relationship as D hired C. Also C was hired for the purpose of carrying the job of a conductor and when C decided to drive the bus, he acted outside his course of employment. 'M' could not be made liable for the act of 'C', as his (C's) act of d riving the vehicle was not in the course of his employment.
By: SANAT DATT BHARDWAJ ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources
New Courses