Basis of Vicarious Liability
![handle is hein.journals/ylr26 and id is 123 raw text is: THE BASIS OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY
I
If a master choose to give orders to his servant, no one can
fail to understand why he should be held liable for the conse-
quences of their commission.' Nor is the case in substance dif-
ferent when he ratifies his servant's act. To stamp what is done
for him with the seal of his approval is tacitly, but obviously,
to accept the act as his own ;2 and that is true no less where the
ratification is implicit, than where it is expressly made manifest.3
No one, however, deems it necessary to take objection to lia-
bility which is consequent upon a general negligence.4 I may
knowingly employ a clearly incompetent person.' I may con-
sciously fail to provide proper means for the performance of
the allotted work. I may fail to give my servant information
which I know to be essential to the right completion of his task.7
I may fail to take adequate precautions against the commission
of a tort in my presence.8 In cases such as these, where the
master is directly involved, it is essential to any scheme of law
that he should be held liable for such damage as his servant
may cause.
The problem is far different where express authority does not
exist. A state in which it is an accepted doctrine that the sins
of the servant may, even when unauthorized, be visited upon the
master, has won a tolerable respect for its law. Yet the thing
is sufficiently novel to be worth some careful investigation. In
no branch of legal thought are the principles in such sad con-
'Doctor and Student, I, ix; Lucas v. Mason (1875) Io Ex. 251; Smith
v. Keal (1882) 9 Q. B. D. 340.
2 Bishop v. Montague (160o) Cro. Eliz. II, 824; Padget v. Priest (1787)
2 T. P. 97; Ewbank v. Nutting (1849) 7 C. B. 797; Dempsey v. Chambers
(1891) 154 Mass. 330.
3 Goff v. G. N. R. Co. (1861) 3 E. & E. 672; Walker v. S. E. Ry. Co.
(1870) 5 C. P. 640.
4 Wanstallv. Pooley (1841) 6 C1. & F. gio; Dansey v. Richardson (1854)
3 El. & BI. 144; Cox v. Central Vermont Ry. Co. (1898) 170 Mass. 129.
5 Cutler v. Morrison (igio) 43 Pa. Sup. Ct. 55; Martin v. Richards
(1892) I55 Mass. 381.
6 Mitchell v. Boston & Maine R. R. Co. (1894) 68 N. H. 96.
7 Fletcher v. Baltimore & P. R. R. Co. (1897) 168 U. S. 135.
8M'Laughlin v. Pryor (842) 4 Man. & G. 58.
[105]](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/ylr26&div=17&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Basis of Vicarious Liability
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most