Course: Tort Law

Title: Vicarious Liability – essat Q.

Date: 2019- 8-6

2015 . Question no. 6

The doctrine of Vicarious Liability is a rule of responsibility which renders the Df to be liable for
the tort committed by another. It imposes strict liability on the employer. Generally, employer to
be held liable for employing a negligent employee. But why employer to be liable for the tortious
act by the employee, it seems to be not fair. According to the ‘Benefit and burden’ principle
Since, the employer derives benefit from the employee’s services, he should be made liable for
any wrongful act or conduct of the employee in the performance of work. Moreover, there’s ‘deep
pocket’ argument, where, employer are better off than employee and more likely to hv liability
insurance. Therefore, a form of distributive justice is to ensure a compensation given to the
victims and spreading the loss on to those whom more able to bear the loss which r the employer.

In the case of Lister v Romford Ice and Cold and Majlis Perbandaran PP v Lim Soo Seng, these
two cases as an example, I would like to cite as the introduction of how importance of the decision
on the court to derive from the case and rule out with precious principle, where they interpreted
and determined the requirements throughout the course of employment in court.
In the case of Lister v Romford Ice and Cold where both father and son worked …..[refer
textbook 436-437]
Until the case of Majlis Perbandaran PP v Lim Soo Seng.

The court held tat the effect of s10(1)(c) of the Civil Law Act 1956 is tat an employer may claim
compensation form his negligent employee, but the employer cannot claim contribution from the
employer.

Cases to be According to Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Lockhart,

cited to
discuss(refe
r to
Edmund
notes)