Concept of Vicarious Liability

Vicarious Liability is a principle in Tort law where one person is held liable for the tortious acts committed by another person, even though the first person did not commit the act themselves and may not have been personally at fault. This liability arises solely because of the relationship between the two parties and the connection of the tort to that relationship.

In contrast to primary liability, where a person is liable for their own wrongful conduct, vicarious liability is an example of secondary liability or imputed liability. It holds a party responsible for the acts of another due to a specific legal relationship between them.

---

Liability of One Person for the Tort of Another

The core idea of vicarious liability is that the law deems it just and expedient to make one person answerable for wrongs committed by another. The most common instance of vicarious liability is that of an employer being held liable for the torts committed by their employee in the course of employment. However, it also applies in other relationships recognised by law.

Key Characteristics:

• Liability for Another's Act: The defendant is liable for a tort committed by someone else (the tortfeasor).
• Relationship Required: There must be a specific type of legal relationship between the defendant (who is held liable) and the tortfeasor (who committed the tort). The most common relationships are:
  • Employer and Employee (Master and Servant)
  • Principal and Agent
  • Partners in a Partnership Firm
• Tort Committed within the Scope of Relationship: The tortious act must have been committed within the scope of that relationship (e.g., by the employee in the course of their employment).
• Tortfeasor Remains Liable: The person who actually committed the tort does not escape liability. They remain primarily liable. Vicarious liability provides an additional avenue for the plaintiff to seek compensation, often from a party with greater resources or insurance.

The principle is encapsulated in the Latin maxim Respondeat Superior, meaning "let the master answer". This highlights the historical origin of the doctrine, primarily concerning the liability of a master for the acts of their servant.

Example in Indian Context: If a delivery driver employed by a courier company negligently causes a road accident while delivering a parcel, the driver is personally liable for the tort of negligence. Additionally, the courier company (the employer) can be held vicariously liable for the driver's negligence, provided the accident occurred in the course of his employment.

---

Vicarious liability is a significant departure from the general principle that a person is only liable for their own wrong. Its justification lies in various policy considerations and theories, which explain why the law holds one person responsible for the actions of another.

Theories of Vicarious Liability

The imposition of vicarious liability might seem prima facie unfair – holding someone liable for a wrong they did not commit. Legal theorists and courts have developed various justifications or theories to explain the rationale and policy basis behind this doctrine. These theories are not mutually exclusive and often overlap, collectively supporting the principle of vicarious liability.

---

Proxy Theory (or Identification Theory)

This is one of the oldest theories, rooted in the concept of the master-servant relationship. It is based on the Latin maxim Qui facit per alium facit per se, which translates to "He who acts through another acts for himself".

Idea:

The theory views the employee or agent as merely an extension or 'arm' of the employer or principal. The actions of the employee are, in legal contemplation, considered to be the actions of the employer themselves. The employer is deemed to have committed the tort through their proxy or representative.

Historically, this theory reflected the close control a master had over a servant. The servant was seen as performing the master's will. The master was identified with the servant's actions.

Criticism:

This theory is considered somewhat artificial and outdated in the context of modern employment, especially in large organisations where employers do not have direct, minute-by-minute control over every action of their employees. It doesn't fully explain liability for acts that the employer might have expressly prohibited but which are still considered within the 'course of employment'.

---

Social Theory (or Deep Pocket Theory)

This theory focuses on the practical outcome of ensuring compensation for the injured party.

Idea:

The employer or principal is usually in a better financial position than the employee or agent. They are the party with the "deep pocket" – greater assets, insurance coverage, and capacity to absorb the cost of liability.

The rationale is that the law should ensure that victims of torts, particularly those committed within the framework of an enterprise, are compensated. Holding the employer liable increases the likelihood that the victim will receive damages for their loss, as the employee might not have the means to pay a substantial court award.

Criticism:

Critics argue that holding someone liable simply because they have money seems unfair and ignores the principle of fault. It treats the law of tort more as a system of social insurance than as a system based on corrective justice and fault. However, it is undeniable that the ability of the employer to pay or be insured is a significant policy consideration influencing courts.

---

Risk Theory (or Loss Distribution Theory)

This theory is widely accepted as a strong justification for vicarious liability in modern times. It views tort liability as a means of allocating and distributing the risks inherent in conducting an enterprise.

Idea:

An employer or principal is operating an activity (a business, a project, an enterprise) that inevitably creates risks of harm to third parties. The tortious act committed by the employee or agent is seen as a risk inherent in or characteristic of that enterprise.

The rationale is that the party who creates the risk and benefits from the activity should bear the cost of the harm that materialises from that risk, as a normal expense of the operation. This cost can then be distributed more broadly, either through insurance (where the cost is spread among policyholders) or through the pricing of goods and services (where the cost is passed on to consumers).

Focus:

This theory shifts the focus from the individual fault of the employee to the inherent risks of the employer's enterprise. It views vicarious liability as a means of achieving efficient loss distribution, ensuring that the costs of accidents are not borne solely by the innocent victim but are spread across the enterprise and, ultimately, the consumers who benefit from it.

---

Economic Theory (or Incentive/Efficiency Theory)

This theory looks at the economic consequences of imposing vicarious liability and its effect on behaviour.

Idea:

Holding employers or principals vicariously liable for the torts of their employees provides a strong incentive for them to take all reasonable measures to prevent future torts. Since they bear the cost of accidents, they are motivated to improve training, supervision, safety procedures, and work systems to minimise risks. They are often in the best position to implement such preventative measures.

The theory also supports the idea of "internalising" costs. The full cost of operating an enterprise, including the potential cost of accidents caused by employees, should be borne by the enterprise itself, rather than being externalised and borne by the victim or society. This leads to a more economically efficient allocation of resources, as the price of goods or services reflects their true cost, including the cost of the risks involved in their production or delivery.

Focus:

Promoting accident prevention through incentives and achieving economic efficiency by ensuring that the costs of harmful activities are borne by those who undertake and benefit from them.

---

In Indian tort law, courts have implicitly relied on a combination of these theories, particularly the Risk Theory and the Social/Deep Pocket Theory, to justify holding employers vicariously liable for the torts of their employees committed during the course of employment. The focus is on ensuring compensation for victims and incentivising employers to maintain safe systems and supervise their employees adequately.

Employer-Employee Relationship

One of the most significant and frequently encountered applications of the principle of vicarious liability is the liability of an employer (or master) for the torts committed by their employee (or servant). This liability is not based on any personal fault of the employer but arises solely from the legal relationship between them and the fact that the tort occurred within the scope of that relationship.

For an employer to be held vicariously liable, two primary conditions must be met:

1. There must exist an Employer-Employee Relationship between the defendant and the tortfeasor.
2. The tort must have been committed by the employee within the course of their employment.

We will examine the first condition here: establishing the employer-employee relationship.

---

Tests for Determining the Employer-Employee Relationship

Determining whether a person is an 'employee' or falls into a different category (such as an independent contractor) is crucial because vicarious liability typically applies only to the torts of employees, not independent contractors (with limited exceptions, discussed later). Over time, courts have developed various tests to distinguish between these relationships.

1. The Control Test (Historical Test):

This was the traditional and primary test. It focused on whether the employer had the right to control not only *what* the employee did but also *how* they did it.

• If the employer controlled or had the right to control the detailed manner in which the work was performed, the person was likely considered an employee.
• If the person was skilled and largely determined their own method of work, they were more likely to be considered an independent contractor.

Example: A factory owner telling a worker exactly how to operate a machine, when to start and stop, and supervising closely indicates control. A person hired to fix a leaking tap, who decides how to do the repair and uses their own tools and methods, suggests less control over the *how*.

Limitations of the Control Test:

With the rise of skilled professions (doctors, engineers, IT professionals), where employers cannot realistically control the *method* of work, the Control Test became less effective as the sole determinant. Employers of highly skilled professionals rarely dictate the technical details of their work. This led to the development of more modern tests.

---

2. The Organisation Test (or Integration Test):

This test examines whether the work done by the individual is an integral part of the employer's business or is merely accessory to it. Lord Denning in the English case of *Stevenson, Jordan and Harrison Ltd v. MacDonald and Evans [1952]* famously illustrated this:

"$ \text{'It is often easy to recognise a contract of service when you see it, but difficult to say wherein the distinction lies. A ship's master, a chauffeur, and a reporter on the staff of a newspaper are all employed under a contract of service; but a taxi driver, a master of a chartered ship, and a contributor to a newspaper are not.'} $"

The key question is whether the individual's work is so integrated into the operations of the business that they are considered part of the organisation.

• If the person's work is fully integrated into the business structure and operations, they are likely an employee.
• If they are providing services *to* the organisation as an independent business undertaking, they are likely an independent contractor.

---

3. The Economic Reality Test (or Multiple Test):

This is the modern approach favoured by courts in many jurisdictions, including India. It involves looking at the totality of the relationship and considering multiple factors, rather than relying on a single test. The goal is to determine the true economic reality of the relationship.

Key factors considered under this test include (but are not limited to):

• Control: The right to control *how* the work is done remains relevant, though not decisive.
• Integration: Whether the work is integral to the business (Organisation Test).
• Provision of Tools and Equipment: Who provides the tools and equipment necessary for the job? Employers typically provide these for employees.
• Method of Payment: Are they paid a regular salary/wage (employee) or a lump sum upon completion of a specific task (independent contractor)? Deductions for Provident Fund (PF), Employee State Insurance (ESI), or Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) under employment categories are strong indicators of employment in India.
• Right to Hire and Fire: Does the employer have the right to hire and dismiss the individual?
• Hours of Work: Are fixed working hours imposed?
• Exclusivity of Service: Does the individual work exclusively for this employer, or can they work for others simultaneously?
• Holiday and Leave Entitlements: Are they entitled to paid leave and holidays?
• Bearing of Risk/Profit: Does the individual bear the financial risk of the work or stand to make a profit beyond their remuneration? Independent contractors often do.

The court weighs all these factors to determine the overall nature of the relationship. No single factor is conclusive; it's a question of degree.

Indian Context: Indian courts, particularly the Supreme Court, have moved towards the multiple test to determine the employer-employee relationship, especially in contexts like labour law and industrial disputes, but the principles are also applied in tort law. Indicators like PF/ESI deductions, written contracts defining the relationship, and the degree of supervision are given significant weight.

The question of whether a doctor working in a hospital is an 'employee' or an 'independent consultant' is often debated and depends heavily on the terms of their engagement with the hospital, analysed using these tests.

---

Only if the court determines that an employer-employee relationship exists can the inquiry proceed to the second condition for vicarious liability: whether the tort was committed within the course of employment.

Tort committed within the course of employment

Once it is established that the tortfeasor is an employee of the defendant, the plaintiff must then prove that the employee committed the tort while acting within the course of their employment. This is a crucial limitation on the employer's liability. An employer is not liable for every tort committed by their employee, only for those committed while the employee is engaged in doing what they are employed to do or something reasonably incidental to it.

The phrase "course of employment" is broader than simply performing the specific task the employee was hired for. It includes acts that are authorised, acts that are unauthorised but closely connected to authorised acts, and sometimes even acts that are expressly prohibited by the employer, if they are done while carrying out the employer's work.

---

Scope of "Course of Employment":

1. Acts Authorised by the Employer:

If the employee commits a tort while doing something they were expressly instructed or authorised to do, the employer is clearly liable. This is the most straightforward scenario.

• Example: An employee authorised to drive the company vehicle for business purposes negligently causes an accident while on duty.

2. Acts Impliedly Authorised or Incidental to Authorised Acts:

This includes acts that are necessary or reasonably incidental to carrying out the employee's authorised duties, even if not specifically instructed. It also covers acts that are part of the employee's ordinary duties or are done for the employer's benefit.

• Example: A factory worker taking a short break for tea on the premises during working hours. If, during this break, he negligently causes harm while doing something connected to his work (like leaving a tool in a dangerous place), it might still be considered within the course of employment.
• Travelling to and from work is generally *not* within the course of employment, but travelling *during* work (e.g., a sales executive travelling to meet clients) is.

3. Acts Done in Furtherance of Employer's Business:

An employer can be liable for intentional torts (like assault, battery, false imprisonment, or defamation) committed by an employee if the employee committed the tort while trying to carry out the employer's work or in the employer's supposed interest, even if the method used was unauthorised or excessive. This is sometimes referred to as the employee acting "for the master's business" or "for the master's sake".

• Case Example: A security guard employed by a shopkeeper unlawfully detains a suspected shoplifter. Even if the shopkeeper did not authorise unlawful detention, the guard's act was an excessive method of performing his job (preventing theft/catching thieves). The employer might be liable.
• Case Example: A bus conductor uses excessive force to eject a passenger for not paying fare. The act of ejecting is within the course of employment (enforcing rules), but the excessive force is an unauthorised method. The employer (bus company) might be liable.

4. Prohibited Acts:

An employer can still be liable for a tort committed by an employee even if the employee was expressly prohibited from doing the act, provided the prohibited act was done *within the sphere of employment*. The prohibition might relate to the *way* an authorised job is done, rather than prohibiting the job itself.

• Example: A lorry driver is prohibited by his employer from giving lifts to unauthorised persons. He gives a lift to someone who is then injured due to the driver's negligent driving. The employer might still be liable for the negligent driving, as driving the lorry was within the course of employment, and the prohibition only related to carrying passengers, not the driving itself.
• However, if the prohibited act takes the employee completely outside the scope of their employment, the employer will not be liable. (e.g., the driver takes a detour for a personal trip and causes an accident - this is often considered outside the course of employment).

Distinctions and Limitations:

• Employee "Frolic": If the employee goes off on a "frolic of his own" (acts purely for their own benefit or interest, completely unconnected to their work), the employer is generally not liable. The connection to the employment must not be too remote.
• Express Prohibition vs. Scope of Duty: The key is whether the prohibited act is within the *scope* of the employee's job, albeit done improperly or in a prohibited manner. A prohibition on the *manner* of doing work is less likely to negate liability than a prohibition that defines the *scope* of the employment itself.

The determination of whether an act falls within the course of employment is a question of fact in each case, requiring careful consideration of the employee's duties and the nature of the tortious conduct.

Distinction between Employee and Independent Contractor

The distinction between an Employee (Servant) and an Independent Contractor is of paramount importance in the context of vicarious liability. An employer is generally held vicariously liable for the torts committed by their employee in the course of employment, but a principal is generally *not* vicariously liable for the torts committed by an independent contractor.

This is because an independent contractor is engaged to perform a specific task or achieve a specific result, but they have control over the method and manner of performing the work. They are operating their own business or profession, not acting as an integral part of the principal's organisation or subject to the principal's control over how the work is done. The principal's interest is in the outcome, not the detailed process.

---

Key Differences:

The tests for determining the employer-employee relationship (Control, Organisation, Multiple Tests, as discussed earlier) are essentially aimed at drawing this distinction. Applying these tests helps classify the relationship.

Table: Employee vs. Independent Contractor

Feature	Employee (Servant)	Independent Contractor
Nature of Contract	Contract of Service (Agreement to serve)	Contract for Service (Agreement to provide services)
Control	Employer controls/right to control *how* work is done.	Contractor controls *how* work is done (Principal controls *result*).
Integration	Work is integral part of employer's business.	Provides services *to* the business, but is not integrated into it.
Method of Payment	Regular wages/salary (e.g., monthly pay cheque, daily wage). Subject to PF/ESI deductions.	Lump sum on completion of job or fee for service. Pays own taxes, typically not subject to PF/ESI via principal.
Tools/Equipment	Typically provided by employer.	Typically provides own tools/equipment.
Hours of Work	Often fixed hours, subject to employer's schedule.	Determines own working hours (within project deadlines).
Exclusivity	Often works exclusively for one employer.	Can work for multiple clients simultaneously.
Risk/Profit	Does not bear significant financial risk or stand to profit from the work itself (other than remuneration).	Bears financial risk of the job; potential for profit/loss on the contract.
Supervision	Subject to direct supervision.	Supervised on outcome/compliance with contract, not method.
Vicarious Liability	Employer **is** generally liable for torts in course of employment.	Principal **is generally not** liable for torts.

---

Exceptions to the Rule for Independent Contractors

While the general rule is no vicarious liability for independent contractors, there are important exceptions where a principal may still be held liable for the torts of an independent contractor:

• Authorising the Tort: If the principal expressly authorised the independent contractor to commit the tort, or if the tortious act was the inevitable consequence of the work the contractor was hired to do.
• Non-Delegable Duties: In certain situations, the law imposes a duty on a principal that is considered "non-delegable". This means the principal cannot escape liability by hiring an independent contractor to perform the duty. If the contractor fails to perform the duty carefully and causes harm, the principal is liable. Examples include duties related to inherently dangerous activities, duties owed by occupiers to visitors in certain circumstances, or statutory duties that require a specific level of care.
• Nuisance: A principal might be liable if they hire an independent contractor to perform work on their land that is likely to cause a nuisance unless special precautions are taken, and the contractor fails to take those precautions.
• Strict Liability: If the activity for which the independent contractor is hired is one of strict liability (like the rule in *Rylands v. Fletcher*, or the Absolute Liability rule in India for hazardous activities), the principal who initiated the dangerous activity may be liable even if they hired a contractor to carry it out.

Despite these exceptions, the fundamental distinction remains vital. Most torts committed by an independent contractor while performing their work will not result in vicarious liability for the principal. The victim would have to sue the independent contractor directly.

Determining the correct classification and whether an act falls within the course of employment or within an exception requires careful legal analysis of the facts and the specific relationship between the parties.

Vicarious Liability of the State

The question of whether the State can be held vicariously liable for the tortious acts of its servants (employees) is a complex one in Indian law. While the general principle of vicarious liability (like employer-employee) applies to private individuals and entities, the State's position is different due to its sovereign nature and historical background.

---

Historical Background and Evolution

The concept in India is rooted in the common law principle that the Crown (the State) could not be sued in its own courts ('King can do no wrong'). However, this immunity was not absolute and was limited in England over time. In India, during the British rule, the East India Company initially engaged in both sovereign activities (like administration, defence) and commercial activities. Courts had to determine the Company's liability for acts done in these different capacities.

After the transfer of power to the British Crown, the position regarding the liability of the Secretary of State for India in Council was largely governed by Section 65 of the Government of India Act, 1858, which stated that a person could have the same remedies against the Secretary of State as they would have had against the East India Company. This statutory provision essentially preserved the pre-1858 position of the Company's liability.

Post-Independence, Article 300 of the Constitution of India deals with suits and proceedings by or against the Union or a State. Article 300(1) states that the Government of India and the Government of a State may sue or be sued in the name of the Union or the State, and "may, subject to any provisions which may be made by Act of Parliament or of the Legislature of such State enacted by virtue of powers conferred by this Constitution, sue or be sued in relation to their respective affairs in the like cases as the Dominion of India and the corresponding Provinces or the corresponding Indian States might have sued or been sued if this Constitution had not been enacted."

This means the ability to sue the Union or a State is determined by the position as it existed just before the Constitution came into force, subject to future legislation. Since no comprehensive legislation has been enacted in this regard, courts have had to interpret the pre-Constitution position, leading to the controversial distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign functions.

---

Sovereign and Non-Sovereign Functions

Based on the interpretation of Article 300 and the pre-1858 position, courts in India developed and applied the distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign functions of the State to determine its tortious liability.

Sovereign Functions:

These are functions that are considered characteristic of the State's sovereign power and are essential attributes of a sovereign government. They include:

• Defence and military operations.
• Administration of justice.
• Maintenance of law and order (police functions, arrest, detention).
• Acts of State (in external affairs).

Historically, the State was considered immune from liability in tort for acts done by its servants in the exercise of sovereign functions.

Decision:

This case became a significant precedent, widely criticised for denying remedy to citizens for harm caused by state servants acting within what were considered sovereign domains.

Non-Sovereign (or Commercial/Trading) Functions:

These are functions that could be, and often are, performed by private individuals or entities. They are not essential attributes of sovereignty. They include:

• Commercial activities.
• Construction and maintenance of public works (roads, buildings, except those directly related to defence).
• Running hospitals or educational institutions (unless purely military or security related).
• Transport services.

The State was considered liable in tort for acts done by its servants in the exercise of non-sovereign functions, just like a private employer.

Decision:

This case laid the foundation for the sovereign/non-sovereign distinction in India.

---

Narrowing Scope of Sovereign Immunity and Article 300

The strict application of the sovereign immunity doctrine, particularly after the *Kasturilal* case, led to significant injustice where citizens suffered harm due to the negligent or wrongful acts of state servants but were denied compensation simply because the act was labelled 'sovereign'.

Over time, the Indian judiciary has increasingly criticised and limited the scope of the sovereign immunity defence. While the *Kasturilal* judgment has not been formally overruled, subsequent decisions have significantly eroded its application. Modern approach favours narrowing the scope of sovereign functions and expanding the liability of the State.

The trend in judicial decisions (e.g., *State of Rajasthan v. Vidhyawati (1962)*, *N. Nagendra Rao & Co. v. State of A.P. (1994)*, *Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India (1996)*) shows a move towards holding the State liable for tortious acts of its servants unless the act is strictly an exercise of sovereign power in its narrowest sense (like defence in wartime, foreign policy decisions) or is a policy decision taken at the highest executive level, not merely the negligent implementation of a policy.

The courts have emphasised that in a welfare state, the government undertakes various activities which, even if broadly related to governance, should not grant immunity from liability for the wrongful acts of its servants, especially when dealing directly with citizens and their rights. The State should be subject to the same laws as individuals.

---

Constitutional Remedy (Articles 32 & 226)

Crucially, even where tortious liability might be barred by the sovereign immunity doctrine under Article 300 and common law, the Supreme Court (under Article 32) and High Courts (under Article 226) can award compensation to citizens for the violation of their Fundamental Rights by the State or its agents. This constitutional remedy is a powerful tool to bypass the sovereign immunity hurdle, particularly in cases of unlawful detention (false imprisonment), police brutality, or other human rights violations by state actors. The compensation here is often seen as public law compensation for constitutional wrong, rather than purely a private law remedy in tort, although it serves a similar compensatory and deterrent purpose.

Therefore, while Article 300 refers to the historical position of liability, the constitutional framework and evolving judicial interpretation have significantly expanded the circumstances under which the State can be held accountable for the wrongful acts of its servants, effectively narrowing the defence of sovereign immunity in tort.

Liability of Principal for Torts of Agent

The principle of vicarious liability also applies in the relationship between a Principal and their Agent. A principal can be held liable for the tortious acts committed by their agent, provided the agent committed the tort while acting within the scope of their authority.

---

Meaning of Principal-Agent Relationship

An agent is a person employed to do any act for another, or to represent another in dealings with third persons. The person for whom such act is done, or who is so represented, is called the principal. This relationship is governed by the principles of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, particularly Chapter X.

Key Aspects:

• The relationship is based on the agent's authority to act on behalf of the principal.
• The agent's actions within that authority are treated in law as the actions of the principal.
• The maxim *Qui facit per alium facit per se* (He who acts through another acts for himself) is particularly relevant here.

---

Conditions for Vicarious Liability of the Principal

For a principal to be held vicariously liable for the tort of their agent, two conditions must be met:

1. The tortfeasor must be the Agent of the defendant (the Principal).
2. The tort must have been committed by the agent while acting within the scope of their authority.

Scope of Authority:

An agent's authority can be express (granted verbally or in writing) or implied (inferred from the circumstances, the nature of the job, or the usual course of dealing). The principal's liability extends to torts committed by the agent while acting within:

• Actual Authority: Authority expressly or impliedly given by the principal.
• Apparent or Ostensible Authority: Authority that the principal, by their words or conduct, has led third parties to believe the agent possesses, even if the agent does not have actual authority. If the agent commits a tort while acting within this apparent authority, the principal might still be liable to the third party who reasonably relied on that apparent authority.

If the agent commits a tort while acting outside the scope of their authority, the principal is generally not liable. However, if the agent's wrongful act (even if unauthorised) is a mode of performing an authorised act, the principal might still be liable, similar to the employer-employee context ("in the course of employment").

Examples:

• If a real estate agent authorised to show a property to potential buyers negligently causes damage to the property while doing so, the principal (property owner or agency) could be vicariously liable for the agent's negligence, as showing the property was within the scope of his authority.
• If a sales agent authorised to negotiate deals makes a fraudulent misrepresentation to a customer to close a sale (a tort of deceit), the principal can be held liable for the agent's fraud if the misrepresentation was made while acting within the scope of his authority to conduct the sale.

---

The principal's liability for the agent's torts is thus contingent on the existence of the agency relationship and the agent acting within the bounds of the authority granted or reasonably perceived to have been granted.

Liability of Partners for Torts of Co-partner

In a Partnership Firm, the relationship between the partners is based on mutual agency. Each partner is considered an agent of the firm and their co-partners for the business of the partnership. Consequently, the principle of vicarious liability applies among partners and makes the firm and all partners liable for the tortious acts of one partner, provided the tort was committed within the ordinary course of the business of the firm or with the authority of the co-partners.

---

Basis of Liability: Mutual Agency

Section 26 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, embodies this principle:

"$ \text{'Notice to a partner who habitually acts in the business of the firm of any matter relating to the affairs of the firm operates as notice to the firm, except in the case of a fraud on the firm committed by or with the consent of that partner.'} $"

While Section 26 specifically deals with notice, the general principle of partners being agents for the firm's business leads to joint and several liability for torts committed within that business scope.

---

Conditions for Vicarious Liability of Partners

For a partnership firm and its partners to be held liable for the tort of a partner, two conditions must be met:

1. The tortfeasor must be a Partner in the defendant firm.
2. The tort must have been committed by the partner while acting in the ordinary course of the business of the firm, or while acting with the authority of his co-partners.

Ordinary Course of Business:

This refers to acts that are typically done in carrying out the kind of business conducted by the firm. The nature of the business is crucial. For example, giving legal advice is within the ordinary course of business for a law firm, but not for a trading firm.

Liability extends to torts committed by a partner:

• While performing acts that are part of the day-to-day business operations.
• Even if the partner was specifically instructed not to commit the tort, if the act itself was a method of doing something within the ordinary course of business.
• Even if the partner acted fraudulently or maliciously, if the tort was committed within the apparent scope of his authority and the victim was dealing with the firm in good faith.

Authority of Co-partners:

If a partner commits a tort while performing an act outside the ordinary course of business, the firm and other partners will only be liable if that partner was specifically authorised by the co-partners to perform that act.

Examples:

• If a partner in a law firm gives negligent legal advice while advising a client of the firm (tort of negligent misstatement), the firm and all other partners are jointly and severally liable to the client. Giving legal advice is in the ordinary course of business for a law firm.
• If a partner in a trading firm, while driving a company vehicle for business purposes, negligently causes an accident, the firm and other partners are liable for the negligence, as driving for business is in the ordinary course of the firm's activities.
• If a partner in an accounting firm commits fraud (deceit) while dealing with a client's money entrusted to the firm in the ordinary course of its business, the firm and other partners can be held liable for the fraud.

---

Joint and Several Liability

When a firm is held liable for a partner's tort, the liability of the partners is joint and several. This means the injured plaintiff can sue the firm, or the partner who committed the tort, or any one or more of the other partners, or all of them together. Each partner is liable for the full amount of the damages, although the partners who pay have a right to contribution from the partner who committed the tort and from other co-partners according to their share in the partnership.

---

The liability of partners for each other's torts ensures that third parties dealing with a partnership firm are protected and can seek recourse from the collective entity and its members for wrongs committed in the course of the firm's business activities.