Principle: A master is not liable for torts committed by an employee when the employee is on an independent frolic of his own.
Facts: A delivery driver detours 25 kilometers away from his delivery zone to visit his personal friend and causes an accident during the detour. Is the employer liable?
Answer and explanation
Correct answer: B. No, the substantial deviation constituted an independent frolic outside employment scope
- Step 1: Distinguish between a minor detour and an independent frolic in vicarious liability.
- Step 2: A minor deviation on the journey remains within the course of employment, but an entirely independent journey (25 km detour for personal visit) is a frolic of his own.
- Step 3: The master is not vicariously liable for torts committed during such an independent frolic.
Answer
No, the substantial deviation constituted an independent frolic outside employment scope.
Practise more Torts: Vicarious Liability, Nuisance and Defenses.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed CLAT UG mock tests.
More Torts: Vicarious Liability, Nuisance and Defenses questions
- Principle: An employer is vicariously liable for torts committed by an employee in the course of employment.
Facts: A bank driver, while dri… - Principle: Volenti non fit injuria is a complete defense when the plaintiff freely consents to run the risk with full knowledge of its natur…
- Principle: Strict liability applies when a person brings onto land and keeps there something likely to do mischief if it escapes, unless the…
- Principle: Private nuisance requires substantial and unreasonable interference with the plaintiff use and enjoyment of land.
Facts: A neighb… - Principle: Truth (justification) is an absolute defense to an action for civil defamation in tort.
Facts: A journalist publishes that an acc… - Principle: The doctrine of absolute liability (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India) allows no exceptions when an enterprise engages in an inheren…