INTRODUCTION
Liability is the bond of legal necessity that exists between the wrong-doer and the remedy of the wrong. It has its source in the supreme will of the state.
A. VICARIOUS LIABILITY
According to Fleming:
Vicarious liability is a principle where the law holds one person responsible for the misconduct of another.
BASIS OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY
The principle of vicarious liability is based on the following two Latin Maxims,
1. Respondeat Superior
It means “Let the superior be responsible.
2. Qui Facit Per Alium Facit Per Se
It means; “He who does an act through another is deemed to be doing the act himself.”
KINDS OF VICARIOUS LIABILITIES
Liability for another’s wrongful acts or omission arises in the following three ways.
1. LIABILITY BY RATIFICATION:
If a person authorizes a tort to be committed by another, he becomes responsible for that tort as if he had committed it himself. Similarly, if one person commits a tort assuming to act on behalf of another but without his authority, and that other subsequently ratifies and assents to that act, he thereby becomes responsible for it.
2. LIABILITY BY ABETMENT:
In actions of torts, the abettors of the tortuous acts are as much liable as the tort-feasers themselves.
3. LIABILITY ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP:
Every person is responsible for his own acts, but there are circumstances where liability attaches to him for the wrongs committed by others. The most common instances are the liability of the master for wrongs committed by his servant.
Master’s Liability: The master is responsible for the acts of the servant, and is answered for every such wrong of the servant as is committed in the course of service through no express command or privities of the master be provided, for legal presumption are done by his master’s express or implied authority and are in truth the acts of the master. (during job time)
B. STRICT LIABILITY
It is a kind of liability in which a person becomes liable although he has no Men’ Rea to commit an offense.
KINDS OF STRICT LIABILITY
The chief instances of strict liability fall into three divisions, namely,
1. MISTAKE OF LAW:
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. The rule is very strict since the presumption is that everyone knows the law and the legal presumption is irrebuttable.
Reasons for the Rule:
Firstly, the law is definite and knowable and it is the duty of every person to know that part of it which concerns him. Therefore, willful and inevitable ignorance of the law is impossible.
Secondly, the law is in harmony with the rules of natural justice. A person committing a wrong may not know that he is committing a wrong but he certainly knows that he is violating a right.
Thirdly, even if willful ignorance of the law is possible, the difficulties in the way of judicial recognition of such ignorance are insuperable.
2. MISTAKE OF FACT:
Ignorance of fact is a good excuse In English Law it is a complete defense to criminal liability.
Example: A wife deserted by her husband believed in good faith that her husband was dead and she married within seven years of desertion, it was held that she was not guilty of bigamy because of a mistake of fact.
An exception to General Rule: There is one exception to the general rule that the mistake of fact is a complete defense, ie, provided by the liability of a person who abducts a minor girl. A mistake as to her age is no excuse, as the act of taking the girl away is itself wrongful.
3. INEVITABLE ACCIDENT:
An accident is either culpable or inevitable. The culpable accident is no defense save in those exceptional cases where wrongful intent is the exclusive and necessary ground of liability.
An inevitable accident is commonly a good defense both in Civil and Criminal law. There are, however, some exceptions in civil law, where even an inevitable accident is no ground for defense.
DIFFERENCE B/w STRICT & VICARIOUS LIABILITY
Strict liability and Vicarious liability are to be distinguished on the following points.
1. MEANING
Strict Liability: It is a liability in which a person becomes liable although he has no Men’ Rea to commit an offense
Vicarious Liability: Vicarious liability is a principle where the law holds one person responsible for the misconduct of another.
2. BASE
Strict Liability: In order to prove a crime along with the Actus Reus the presence of Mens Rea or guilty mind should also be proved.
Vicarious Liability: It is based on two Latin maxims:
- “Respondent Superior” means let the superior be responsible.
- “Qui Facit Per Alium Facit Per Se”, He who does an act through another is deemed to be doing the act himself.
3. APPLICATION
Strict Liability: The wrong of strict liability falls into the following three categories:
- Mistake of Fact
- Mistake of Law
- Accidents
Vicarious Liability: Liability for another wrongful act or omission arises in the following three ways:
- Liability by Ratification
- Liability by abutment
- Liability arises from of special relationship.
5. EXAMPLES:
Strict Liability:
- Blasphemy
- Drugs
- Qatl-e-Khata
- Weapons
- Driving and traffic offenses
- Unintentional Hurt
Vicarious Liability:
- Master and Servant relationship
- Employer and Independent Contractor
- Principal and Agent
- Company and Director
- Firm and Partner
CONCLUSION
Wrongs of strict liability are those wrongs for which a person is made responsible irrespective of the existence of their wrongful intention or negligence. Wrongs of vicarious liability are those where a person is held responsible for the misconduct of another.
FAQs
Discuss in detail the doctrine of strict and vicarious liability in criminal law.
(2019-A, 2019 5 years)
Strict liabilities do not require proof of Mens Rea. Discuss this statement in light of exceptions also.
(2017-S)
Strict and vicarious liabilities are two different criminal liabilities. How they differ with each other. Explain.
(2016-A, 2015-A)
Strict Liability does not require proving Mens Rea. its nature and exemplify various crimes. Discuss
(2014-A)
REFERENCES
