Vicarious liability is a form of strict, secondary liability that arises under the common law doctrine of agency-respondent superior-the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate, or, in a broader sense, the responsibility of any third party that had the " right , ability or duty to control" the activities of a violator. The liability is placed, not in the person who commits the wrong, but on someone who is supposed to have control over that person and his action.
The most common form of various liability that we come across is the liability arising out of a 'Master- Servant ' relationships. If a servant does a wrongful act in the course of his employment, then not just the servant but also the master…show more content… He met with an accident which was caused by Government servants who were walking on the middle of the road with a huge iron piece. As the plaintiff drove nearer he tried to warn them. They got alarmed and dropped the huge iron bar, the noise of which injured one of the horses of the plaintiff. Now the plaintiff claimed damages from the Secretary of State for India for the damages caused to him. Peacock C.J observed that the doctrine of "king can do no wrong" was not applicable to the East India Company since the workmen were carrying out an activity which could be carried on by private persons so it was classified as non sovereign and the secretary of state was held…show more content… State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746
The petitioner's son aged 22 years was arrested by police in connection with investigation of theft in a village and was kept in custodywith his hands tied. Next day his body was found by the sides of the railway track.His mother sent a letter to the Court alleging custodial death of her son claiming compensation on the ground of violation of Articla 21 of the Constitution. The Court treated the letter as a writ petition under Article 32 and awarded Rs. 1.15 lakhs as compensation to the mother.
• State of A.P. v. Challa Ramrishna Reddy, AIR 2000 SC 2083
In this case a prisoner had informed the jail authorities that he apprehended danger to his life but no measure was taken for his safety and was killed inside the prison.It was found out that one of the police officers was a party to the conspiracy to kill prisoner.The court held that immunity which is an old and archaic defence cannot be accepted and the Government and the police are liable to compensate the