Each question consists of legal propositions/ principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Such principles may or may not be true in the real sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this section. In other words, in answering the following questions, you must not rely on any principles except the principles that are given herein below for every question. Further, you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your interest towards study of law, research aptitude and problem solving ability even if the 'most reasonable conclusion' arrived at may be unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the object of this section to test your knowledge of law.

PRINCIPLE: Master is liable for the wrongful acts committed by his servant; provided the acts are committed during the course of employment. However, the master is not liable if the wrongful act committed by his servant has no connection, whatsoever, with the servant's contract of employment.

FACTS: 'D' is a driver employed by 'M', who is the owner of a company. During the lunch time, 'D' goes to a closely tea shop to have a cup of tea. There he ('D') picks up fight with the tea shop owner ('T'), which resulted in some damage to his shop. T wants to sue 'M' for claiming compensation for the damage a used by the fight.

Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

The correct answer is: 'M' will not be liable because the wrongful act (picking up fight) was not committed in the course of D's employment.

Let us carefully break down the principle and apply it to the given facts step by step.

Step 1: Understand the Legal Principle

The principle has two parts:
  (a) A master is liable for wrongful acts of his servant if those acts are committed during the course of employment.
  (b) A master is NOT liable if the wrongful act has no connection whatsoever with the servant's contract of employment.

This principle is rooted in the legal doctrine of vicarious liability — a master answers for the wrongs of his servant, but only within the boundaries of the servant's employment duties.

Step 2: Identify the Key Facts

  • 'D' is a driver employed by 'M', the owner of a company.
  • During lunch time, 'D' goes to a nearby tea shop on his own initiative — to have a cup of tea.
  • At the tea shop, 'D' picks up a fight with the tea shop owner 'T', causing damage to T's shop.
  • 'T' wants to sue 'M' for compensation.

Step 3: Was 'D' Acting in the Course of Employment?

This is the central question. 'D's contract of employment is to drive for 'M'. The act of going to a tea shop during lunch and picking up a fight is:

  • Not a driving-related activity — it has nothing to do with D's role as a driver.
  • A purely personal activity — having tea during lunch is entirely outside the scope of D's employment duties.
  • The fight itself is a personal altercation with absolutely no connection to D's work or M's company business.

Step 4: Apply the Principle to the Facts

Since the wrongful act (picking a fight with 'T') was committed:
  (i) During D's personal lunch break,
  (ii) At a location chosen by D for his own personal purpose,
  (iii) With no connection whatsoever to his employment as a driver for 'M',

...the second part of the principle is triggered: "the master is not liable if the wrongful act committed by his servant has no connection, whatsoever, with the servant's contract of employment."

Step 5: Conclusion

'M' cannot be held vicariously liable for D's personal conduct at the tea shop. The principle of master-servant liability only extends to acts performed within the course and scope of employment. The moment 'D' stepped away from his employment duties to pursue a personal activity and then committed a wrongful act during that personal activity, 'M's liability ceased entirely.

Therefore, 'M' will not be liable for the damage caused to T's shop, because the wrongful act had no connection with D's employment as a driver. 'T' may, however, proceed against 'D' personally for the damage caused.