1. Vicarious liability deals with one person being liable for the acts of others, such as an employer being liable for torts committed by employees during the course of employment. 2. For vicarious liability to apply, there must be a relationship between the parties and the wrongful act must be related to and committed within the scope of that relationship. 3. A key case established that the government can be vicariously liable for torts committed by its servants during non-sovereign functions, but not for acts done in exercise of sovereign functions like national defense.

1. Cases on vicarious liability

2. Definition
• Vicarious Liability deals with cases where one person is
liable for the acts of others.
• Thus, Employers are vicariously liable for the torts of
their employees that are committed during the course
of employment. The common examples of such a
liability are:
• Liability of the principal for the tort of his agent.
• Liability of partners of each other’s tort.
• Liability of the master for the tort of his servant.
• Liability of the State or Liability of the Administration.

3. • Constituents of Vicarious Liability:
• So the constituents of vicarious liability are:
• There must be a relationship of a certain kind.
• The wrongful act must be related to the
relationship in a certain way.
• The wrong has been done within the course of
employment.

4. ESSENCE
• The liability of the government in tort is governed
by the principles of public law inherited from
British Common law and the provisions of the
Constitution. The whole idea of Vicariously
Liability of the State for the torts committed by its
servants is based on tWOprinciples:
• Respondeat superior (let the principal be liable).
• Quifacit per alium facit per se (he who acts
through another does it himself).

5. • 1. Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Company v Secretary [1]:
• A consideration of the pre-Constitution cases of the Government’s liability
in tort begins with the judgment in the case. P. & O. Steam Navigation Co.
v. Secretary of State.
• The principle of this case holds that if any act was done in the exercise of
sovereign functions, the East India Company or the State would not be
liable. It drew quite a clear distinction between the sovereign and non-
sovereign functions of the state.
• As the facts of the case go, a servant of the plaintiff-company was
proceeding on a highway in Calcutta, driving a carriage which was drawn
by a pair of horses belonging to the plaintiff. He met with an accident,
caused by negligence of the servants of the Government. For the loss
caused by the accident, the plaintiff claimed damages against the Secretary
of State for India.
• The Supreme Court observed that the doctrine that the ‘King can do
wrong’, was applicable to the East India Company. The company would
have been liable in such cases and the Secretary of State was thereafter also
liable FOR NON SOVERIEGN FUNCTION

6. • In the case of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company
v. Secretary of State for India, the Supreme Court classified the
functions of secretary of state into two –
• Sovereign functions
• Non-Sovereign functions
• Sovereign Functions: These are the functions of the state for which
the state is not liable under any provision for the wrongful acts of
its employees. For example, functions like defence activities,
preserving armed forces, maintaining peace and war, diplomacy are
some of the sovereign functions for which the state is not liable.
• Non Sovereign Functions: These are the functions of the state
which are other than the Sovereign Functions.

7. State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati
• Respondents filed a suit for the damages made by an
employee (driver) of a State (Collector of Udaipur) and
the case questioned whether the State was liable for
the tortious act of its servant – The Court held that the
liability of the State in respect of the tortious act by its
servant within the scope of his employment and
functioning as such was similar to that of any other
employer.
• It was held in this case that the State should be as
much liable for tort in respect of tortuous acts
committed by its servant within the scope of his
employment and functioning as such, as any other
employer

8. KASTURI LAL VS STATE OF UP
• The matter was taken to the Supreme Court, the court found, on an
appreciation of the relevant evidence, that the police officers were
negligent in dealing with the plaintiff’s property and also, that they had not
complied with the provisions of the UP Police Regulations.
• However, the Supreme Court rejected the plaintiff’s claim, on the ground
that “the act of negligence was committed by the police officers while
dealing with the property of Ralia Ram, which they had seized in exercise
of their statutory powers. The power to arrest a person, to search him and to
seize property found with him, are powers conferred on the specified
officers by statute and they are powers which can be properly categorized
as sovereign powers.
• Hence the basis of the judgment in Kasturi Lal was two-fold – The act was
done in the purported exercise of a statutory power. Secondly, the act was
done in the exercise of a sovereign function.
•

9. • N. Nagendra Rao v. State of A.P.
• In this case, the Supreme Court held that when
due to the negligent act of the officers of the
state a citizen suffers any damage the state will
be liable to pay compensation and the principle
of sovereign immunity of state will not absolve
him from this liability. The court held that in the
modern concept of sovereignty the doctrine of
sovereign immunity stands diluted and the
distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign
functions no longer exists.