Sitaram Motilal Kalal v Santanuprasad
Rule established
Master is vicariously liable even when servant commits an expressly prohibited act, if the prohibited act is merely an unauthorised MODE of doing authorised work
Facts
- An employer had expressly prohibited a specific manner of performing work. The servant performed the work in the prohibited manner, causing harm to a third party. The employer claimed no vicarious liability since the act was expressly prohibited.
Issue
- Whether a master is vicariously liable when the servant commits an expressly prohibited act causing injury to a third party.
Held
- The Supreme Court held the employer vicariously liable. A prohibition by the employer restricts the mode of doing work but does not take the act outside the course of employment. If the servant was still doing the employer's work (just by a prohibited method), the employer remains liable to injured third parties. The prohibition protects the employer's internal right to discipline, not from external liability.
Ratio Decidendi
1. Employer's prohibition affects the internal relationship (right to discipline servant) but not external liability to third parties. 2. If the prohibited act is merely an unauthorised mode of doing authorised work, vicarious liability persists. 3. The decisive test: was the servant still doing the employer's business at the time of the act?
How to use it in an exam
Use to illustrate that an employer cannot escape vicarious liability by issuing prohibitions. Distinguish from cases where the servant goes on a "frolic of his own" (completely outside the scope of employment). Key for questions on limits of vicarious liability and the mode-vs-scope distinction.
Source
Source: AIR 1966 Supreme Court 1697
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.