UNDERSTANDING VICARIOUS LIABILITY, STRICT LIABILITY, AND ABSOLUTE LIABILITY UNDER TORT LAW

ABSTRACT

This article explains legal doctrine vicarious liability, strict liability and absolute liability which falls under tort law. These concepts are important for determining the degree of responsibility for harm which caused by person or individuals or entities, even the person or individuals or entities are not at fault. Vicarious liability happens because of the special relationship between parties or persons, in which the employers held accountable for the mistake or harm caused by their employees. Strict liability focuses inherently dangerous activities, in which regardless of fault or intent of a person the responsibility arises, even though there are certain defences is available in strict liability. Absolute liability, the harsh form, which imposes responsibility for dangerous or ultra hazardous activities in absolute liability no defences are present. This article highlights the legal principles, landmark case law, elements, defences present in vicarious and strict liability and where this liability applied, which offered a comprehensive understanding of how these liabilities distribute and promote the public safety.

Keywords

Vicarious Liability, Strict Liability, Absolute Liability, Tort Law, Employer – Employee Relationship, Wrongful acts, Liability, Legal Doctrine, parties, persons, harm, injury, case, responsibilities.

INTRODUCTION

Before understanding about these liabilities we have to first know in which law these liabilities comes under, these liabilities come under tort law. The word ‘tort’ developed from the latin word ‘tortum’, which means ‘to twist’.

Tort law deals with civil wrongs-or negligence in action and inactivity that leads to harm or loss to another. Its main purpose is the provision of remedies to those persons who suffer damage and hence deter others from indulging in harmful behavior. There are a few elements that should be established for a tort claim to be successful. First, the defendant owes a duty of care to the plaintiff; that is to say, the defendant was under legal obligation to act in a way that would prevent causing harmed. Next, the acts or omission of the defendant must be proven to have shown breach of the said duty. Thirdly, there must be a direct link between breach and the harm complained of by the plaintiff for this is called causation. The plaintiff must finally have suffered actual injury or damage, whether it is physical, emotional, or financial. If all of these elements exist, then, generally speaking, the injured party is granted damages, or compensation for the injury that they sustain. There are various definitions given by many scholars about tort law which are:

According to Salmond “Tort is a civil wrong for which the remedy is a common law action for unliquidated damages, and which is not exclusively the breach of a contract or the breach of a trust, or other merely equitable obligation.[1]

Winfield defines torts as “Tortious liability arises from the breach of a duty primarily fixed by law. This duty is towards persons generally and its breach is redressable by an action for unliquidated damages”[2]

Faeser defines tort as “Tort is an infringement of a right in rem of a private individual giving of compensation at the suit of the injured party”.[3]

There are many others scholars which gave the definition of tort. There are some liabilities present under tort law which plays crucial role in regulating actions, assigning responsibilities and ensuring that person or parties will be held accountable for his/her wrongful acts or harm. These liabilities are vicarious liability, strict liability, and absolute liability they are legal doctrines present under tort law and help to addresses various situations where a harm occurs, whether though the actions of other persons or parties, which engages in dangerous or ultra hazardous activities, or the task which involving a high degree of risk or danger. These legal doctrines operate differently, reflecting the level of responsibility imposed by law and the nature of relationship between persons or parties involved.

In Vicarious liability there is special relationship between parties or persons like employer – employee, master – servant, etc. According to this doctrine employer or master, is held responsible or accountable for the actions of employee or servant if their actions are not within the scope of their employment or authority. This doctrine is works on the principle which tells that employer or master have control over the actions of their employees or servant and should bear the responsibility of their actions. For avoid the vicarious liability employers or master must manage and supervise their employees or servant and train them with proper training and protocols.

On the other hand, strict liability and absolute liability the liability is imposed without need to prove fault or negligence, it’s instead focus on the nature of the activity and the risks which are associated with these two liabilities. In strict liability the party still pays compensation for harm or damages, even though they are not at fault for dangerous or hazardous activities, even if all the necessary precautions were taken by the person or party. In the strict liability, there are some defences are present or available, which are act of God, the consent of plaintiff, the act of a third party, and an act done under statutory authority.

However, in absolute liability, there are no defenses available, in absolute liability a person or a party is completely liable for any harm caused by particular dangerous or hazardous activities, regardless of intent, negligence, or preventive measures were taken by the person or a party. In the landmark case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India 1987 SCR (1) 819 the principle of absolute liability was established, in which Supreme Court held that industries engaged in hazardous or dangerous activities have to ensure that no harm is caused to the community it’s their absolute duty. Absolute liability ensures maximum protection for victims by imposing strict and non-negotiable accountability on those who engage in dangerous or ultra-hazardous activities.

In these forms of liabilities main difference between them is the change in the degree of responsibility or accountability which imposed by law to ensure the protection of victims of harm. For example, in the doctrine Vicarious liability it’s emphasize the role of supervision and control in employment relationship, while the strict liability and absolute liability focus on the implicit risks of certain activities. In tort law understanding of concept and the applications of vicarious liability, strict liability and absolute liability helps in navigation of complexities of tort law, which ensure justice is served and the persons or parties or entities are held responsible or accountable for the harm which caused by them. These legal doctrines continue to evolve through case laws and administrative changes, reflecting the need for a fair legal system.

VICARIOUS LIABILITY: DEFINITION, LEGAL FOUNDATION, ELEMENTS, DEFENSES AND CASE LAW

Definition

Vicarious liability refers, the legal doctrine where one party is held liable for the actions of another due to their relationship. It commonly arises in employer-employee relationships, where the employer may be responsible for the wrongful acts of an employee committed within the scope of their employment.

For example, in a construction site a construction worker does not handle the control of crane properly and because of that iron pipes fall down on the wall of a nearby building, the company who overseeing the construction and a construction worker may face vicarious liability for the damages caused by the iron pipes. Furthermore, if because of the engineer trains loses its control, and laid down from the track then the company which owned and operated the train may face vicarious liability for the harm or damages and injury caused by the train.

The definition of vicarious liability according to the Lord Chelmsford [4]:

“It has long been established by law that a master is liable to third persons for any injury or damage done through the negligence or unskillfulness of a servant acting in his master’s employ. The reason of this is, that every act which is done by servant in the course of his duty is regarded as done by his master’s order, and consequently it is the same as if were master’s own act”.

Legal Foundation

Legal maxim “Qui facit per alium facit per se” which refers to “he who acts through another acts himself” give the principle of vicarious liability. According to this maxim the actions which performed by employee or servant within the scope of their employment or authority held their employer or master accountable for their actions because according to the law employer’s get benefit from the activities carried out by their employees during the course of their employment, the law imposes duty on an employer to ensure that their employees act within the scope of their responsibilities.

The doctrine ” Qui facit per alium facit per se ” work on the idea that the employers have the ability and resources to give proper training, supervision, and to get control over their employee, this will reduce the risk of harming the third party. Hence, it’s a reasonable reason for law to held employer to bear the financial and legal consequences if their employee found while engaging in the wrongful activity while performing their job and duties. This doctrine aims to protects victims who might be injured or harmed by the employee who might be engaged in wrongful activity and tells the employers for implementing the safety measures which guaranteed the protection of third party, which help in promoting a safer environment for all parties involved.

Elements

The elements of vicarious liability are:

Relationship: For applying vicarious liability, it is essential that between the parties which are involved must have a recognized relationship. The examples of recognized relationship are employer – employee, master – servant, principal – agent or partnerships. This element establishes the foundation for imposing vicarious liability. The relationship refers a level of control or authority over the actions of the subordinate party. The law say that the employer should be held accountable for the actions of their employee.
Scope of employment: For applying the vicarious liability the second essential element is that the employee or agent must be acting within the scope of their employment or agency when the wrongful act happened. This means that their actions should relate directly to their job, duties or responsibility. For determining whether the act falls under the scope of employment it involves to estimate whether the employee was performing tasks related to their job or not and whether actions were motivated by the interests of the employer.
Negligence or wrongful act: Third essential element is that the employee or agent must committed the negligent or wrongful act. This refers to both intentional torts (such as assault) and negligent actions (like causing an accident through carelessness. This element is important because this element establish the basis of liability. Even if the employee acted without the intention to cause harm but due to his/her negligent actions a third party suffered through harm.
Harm or Damage: If because of the employee actions the third party must directly suffered harm or injury. It is not essential that a harm is physical damage or injury it can be property damage, emotional distress, or financial loss. This element refers when because of the wrongful act the injury suffered by the victim. There must be a clear fundamental link that because of the employee’s action the third party suffered harm.

Generally, vicarious liability does not extend to independent contractors. Since the employers does not have the same level of control over the work of independent contractors as they do have over their employees, so they are not held liable for the negligent acts of independent contractors.

There are Certain exceptions to vicarious liability which are:

Frolic and Detour: If an employee deviates from their work duties for personal reasons (a “frolic”), the employer may not be liable for any resulting harm. However, if the deviation is minor (a “detour”) and still related to work, the employer might still be held liable.
Intentional Torts: Employers are typically not liable for intentional torts committed by employees unless those acts are closely connected to their job duties.
Acts Outside the Course of Employment:If the employee is acting outside the scope of their employment or agency, such as engaging in criminal activities unrelated to their job, the employer is usually not held liable.

Defences

Independent Contractor:An independent contractor is a person who is employed by corporation which refer as an employer, the employer may not be held vicariously liable if the person who committed the wrongdoing is classified as an independent contractor. Independent contractors operated independently, and the employer typically has less control over their work methods and actions as compare to the control what they have to their employee. This difference is important because employers are generally only liable for the actions of employees, who work under the employer’s direction and control.
Lack of control: For applying the vicarious liability, the employer must have sufficient control over the actions of their employee’s. If the employee acting independently and outside of their duties, the employer may not be held liable. This defense focuses in the nature of the employment relationship and the degree of oversight the employer had over the employee’s actions
Assumption of Risk:In this defense it’s assume that the injured party knowingly and voluntarily participated in the risk associated with employee’s actions. If the injured party understood the risks which are involved and even then, accepted them, they may be barred from recovery. This defense is often relevant in cases involving recreational activities or hazardous environments where the participants are aware of potential dangers.
Unauthorized acts: If without the authority of the employer the employee acts outside the scope of their employment, the employer may not be liable. For example, if an employee engages in illegal or unauthorized activities which not related to their job and duties, the employer can argue that it should not be held responsible for the action of that employee. This defense focuses on the limits of the employee’s authority and the nature of their actions.

In the Case State of Rajasthan vs. Mst. Vidhyawati and Another (1962) AIR 933

In judgement the Supreme Court of India held that the State of Rajasthan was indeed vicariously liable for the actions of its employee. The supreme court ruled that since the employee was acting within the scope of his employment, the state was responsible for the wrongful act. The court emphasized that the state could not escape liability by claiming sovereign immunity, as the act was performed by a government servant in the course of his duties.

This case is significant as it established the principle that the state can be held liable for the wrongful act of its employees, reinforcing the doctrine of vicarious liability in Indian jurisprudence.[5]

STRICT LIABILITY: DEFINITION, ELEMENTS, DEFENSES AND CASE LAW

Definition

In the legal doctrine strict liability, a party or a person held accountable for their actions without the requiring the proof of their fault, negligence, or intent. In some cases of strict liability, the defendant held responsible for the damages caused, even if all reasonable precautions were taken by the defendant or if the defendant acted in good faith. According to this doctrine once the harmful act happens and it caused damage, the defendant can be held liable for the damage, even if the defendant were not negligent or did not intent to cause harm. Strict liability applied in the situation which involves inherently dangerous activities, or in a situation where public safety is at the priority basis, such as the handling of hazardous materials, or keeping dangerous animals, etc.

For example, if a manufacturer releases a defective product that causes harm to consumers, then the manufacturer can be held strictly liable even if manufacturer take all safety procedures during production. Another example if a person keeps a wild animal, like a lion, and then one day lion escape and harm someone, the owner can be held strictly liable for the harm caused by the lion, regardless of whether the owner took precautions to secure the animal. In these types of cases, the primary focus is not on whether the defendant acted negligently or have an intent to cause to harm, but solely on the fact that the harm occurred as a result of their actions or the situation they created.

Elements

Risky or hazardous activity: For applying strict liability, the first essential element is that person must involve in dangerous or hazardous activities. This means these activities lead to significant danger to others, even when all the reasonable precaution were taken. For example, the use of explosives in mines, keeping wild animal, or the handling toxic chemical. Because these activities carry a high risk of danger to public, the law imposes strict liability to ensure that those engaged in them are fully accountable for any resulting damage.

Injury: For applying the strict liability, the second essential element there must be an injury cause to a party and then injured party must first prove that they suffered from the actual harm or injury. This injury can be physical, emotional, or financial loss. This means that the injured party must demonstrate what they experienced is it some kind of damage or loss because of defendant’s actions. Without proven the injury, there is no legal basis for strict liability. For example, a consumer is harmed because of the defective product, then the consumer needs to show evidence of harm, such as medical reports or repair costs, to sustain their claim.

Causation: The third essential element for applying strict liability is that defendant’s actions directly caused the injury to the party and injured party must prove that because of defendant’s action injury caused. This element focuses on the link between the harmful activity and the injury suffered. It is not enough for an injury to simply exist; the injured party must establish that the injury resulted specifically from the defendant’s conduct or actions. For example, if a person is harmed by a dangerous chemical leak from a factory, they must demonstrate that it was this specific leak (and not some other factor) that caused their injury.

No intent or negligence: The last essential element for applying strict liability is that the injured party does not require to prove that the defendant acted with intention to harm or that the defendant was negligent. This is what makes strict liability different from other tort laws because it does not focus on defendant’s state of mind or behavior while during the harm occur rather than it focuses on the harm that cause by the activities. In strict liability it’s says that as long as the injury and causation are proven, the defendant held liable and it does not matter what is the intention of the defendant.

Defences:

Act of God: Act of God defense applies in those cases when the injury or damage was caused by natural forces or events that are beyond human control, such as earthquakes, floods, or tornadoes. If the defendant can prove that harm was caused by Act of God and not their own actions, the defendant may avoid strict liability. For example, a person keeping a wild animal, like a lion, and because of natural disaster it escapes and harm someone, the owner might argue that the lion escape because of natural disaster and by not their fault.
Plaintiff’s Consent: This defense applies when plaintiff give consent to the defendant’s actions, then the defendant should not liable for any injury or harm. By giving the consent, it means the injured party know and understood risk and even then, agree. For example, the doctor asks for patient consent for doing an operation which might cause the death of patient then the doctor not held liable for the death of the patient.

In the Case Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) [6]

The court held that Rylands was strictly liable for the damage, regardless of whether or not he was at fault. The judges ruled that when a person brings something onto their land that is likely to cause harm if it escapes (in this case, water), they are liable for any resulting damage, even if all possible precautions were taken.

ABSOLUTE LIABILITY: DEFINITION, ELEMENTS, DIFFERENCES WITH STRICT LIABILITY

Definition

Absolute liability refers in which a person or entity is held accountable or responsible for the harm or damage caused by dangerous activities, regardless of fault, intention or precautions. The absolute liability is stricter form of liability than the strict liability. There are no defenses present under the absolute liability so the defendant cannot escape by proving that they were not negligent or that they took all reasonable precautions. The absolute liability applies specially in those cases which involves ultra – hazardous activities and where the potential for harm is extremely high.

An example of absolute liability can be found in the case of Bhopal Gas Tragedy (1984), one of the worst industrial disasters in history.

In the Case of M.C. Mehta v. Union of India 1987 SCR (1) 819

Due to the catastrophic scale of the damage caused by the gas leak, the principle of absolute liability was considered. Union Carbide was held liable for the disaster regardless of whether the company had followed safety precautions or not.[7]

Elements

No Defense Allowed: Unlike strict liability, no defenses (such as lack of negligence or taking precautions) are available in absolute liability. Even if the defendant took every possible step to prevent harm, they are still held liable.
Escape of Harmful Material: There must be an escape of harmful material or substance from the defendant’s premises that causes injury or damage.

Difference with Strict Liability

In strict liability defenses such as act of act of God, plaintiff’s fault, etc., may apply whereas in absolute liability there are no defenses allowed, i.e., the defendant is liable under any circumstances.

In strict liability it requires the activity to be non – natural and dangerous whereas in absolute liability it typically involves ultra – hazardous or inherently dangerous activities.

In strict liability the defendant can argue they took reasonable precautions whereas in absolute liability no excuse or defense is allowed, even if the defendant took all precautions.

Examples of strict liability include cases involving dangerous animals or keeping the dangerous substances whereas in absolute liability it involves industrial accidents, such as pollution or environment hazards.

CONCLUSION

In tort law theses form of liabilities (Vicarious liability, strict liability, and absolute liability) serve different purposes, addressing various levels of responsibility based on relationships, activities, and the nature of the harm caused. The vicarious liability deals with the delegation of tasks and responsibilities, while the strict and absolute liability focus on the risk associated with certain activities. In an increasingly increase and complex society, these principles ensure that justice is served appropriately by allocating responsibility for harm which was caused, these liabilities help in promoting safety and also protects the public from dangerous practices.

Each form of liability plays a crucial, or we can say that important role in holding parties accountable and ensuring that the compensation is given to victims which was harmed, this reflects the evolving nature of law in modern society.

REFERENCES

Studocu, VICARIOUS LIABILITY – LIABILITY FOR WRONG COMMITTED BY OTHERS, https://www.studocu.com/in/document/dr-hari-singh-gour-university/corporate-law/vicarious-liability-dr-j-k-tiwari/45098867 (last visited Oct 8, 2024)
Investopedia, What Is Vicarious Liability?Example and How To Avoid It, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/vicarious-liability.asp#:~:text=Vicarious%20liability%2C%20or%20imputed%20liability,or%20discrimination%20in%20the%20workplace (last visited Oct 7, 2024)
Testbook, Difference Between Strict Liability and Absolute Liability, https://testbook.com/key-differences/difference-between-strict-liability-and-absolute-liability (last visited Oct 7, 2024)
Toppr, The Rule of Strict Liability, https://www.toppr.com/guides/legal-aptitude/law-of-torts/the-rule-of-strict-liability/ (last visited Oct 8, 2024)
Study.com, Vicarious Liability | Definition, Elements & Examples, https://study.com/learn/lesson/vicarious-liability.html (last visited Oct 8, 2024)
Australian Human Rights Commission, Vicarious Liability, https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/employers/vicarious-liability#:~:text=Ensure%20that%20all%20staff%20are,ensure%20they%20are%20working%20effectively (last visited Oct 6,2024)
Pearsonlegal, Vicarious Liability, https://www.pearsonlegal.co.uk/business/employment-law-business/defending-employment-claims/vicarious-liability/(last visited Oct 6, 2024)
Cloudlex, What Is Strict Liability, https://www.cloudlex.com/glossary/what-is-strict-liability/(last visited Oct 6, 2024)
Askadamskutner, What You Need To Know About Strict Liability, https://www.askadamskutner.com/personal-injury/need-know-strict-liability/(last visited Oct 7, 2024)
LegalMatch, Tort Cases Legal Definition, https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/what-are-torts-cases.html (last visited Oct 8,2024)
Ipleaders, Definitions of torts and its characteristics, https://blog.ipleaders.in/definitions-of-torts-and-its-characteristics/ (last visited Oct 10, 2024)
Ambition Law Institute, What is Tort?, https://ambitionlawinstitute.com/what-is-tort-meaning-definition-elements-of-tort-characteristics-explained-by-ambition-law-institute/ (last visited Oct 10, 2024)
Legalserviceindia, Various definitions of the term tort and comment on anyone better known to you, https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-574-various-definitions-of-the-term-tort-and-comment-on-any-one-better-known-to-you.html (last visited Oct 10, 2024)
Toppr, Negligence Tort Law, https://www.toppr.com/guides/legal-aptitude/law-of-torts/negligence-tort-law/ (last visited Oct 10, 2024)
Cornell Law School, tort, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/tort (last visited Oct 10, 2024)

[1] Ipleaders, https://blog.ipleaders.in/definitions-of-torts-and-its-characteristics/(last visited Oct 10, 2024)

[2]Ambition Law Institute, https://ambitionlawinstitute.com/what-is-tort-meaning-definition-elements-of-tort-characteristics-explained-by-ambition-law-institute/ (last visited Oct 10, 2024)

[3] Legalserviceindia, https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-574-various-definitions-of-the-term-tort-and-comment-on-any-one-better-known-to-you.html (last visited Oct 10, 2024)

[4] Dr Janardan Kumar Tiwari, VICARIOUS LIABILITY- LIABILITY FOR WRONG COMMITTED BY OTHERS, studocu(last visited Oct 6, 2024), https://www.studocu.com/in/document/dr-hari-singh-gour-university/corporate-law/vicarious-liability-dr-j-k-tiwari/45098867

[5]State of Rajasthan vs. Mst. Vidhyawati and Another (1962) AIR 933

[6] Studocu, CASE Briefs – REPUBLIC v. AKIM ABUAKWA TRADITIONAL COUNCIL; EX PARTE SAKYIRAA II [1977] 2 GLR 115- – Studocu (last visited Oct 7, 2024)

[7]M.C. Mehta v. Union of India 1987 SCR (1) 819

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.