UNIT 7

MASTER'S LIABILITY FOR SERVANT'S TORTS

The principle of vicarious liability holds a master (employer) liable for the tortious acts of his servant (employee) committed within the course of employment. This doctrine is rooted in the need to ensure victims can secure compensation from a financially responsible party. For a master to be vicariously liable there must be an employer-employee relationship and the servant must be acting within the duties assigned by the master. See the case of Ogunbusi v. African Newspaper Ltd (1973) NCLR 151 where the court held that an employer was liable for defamatory statements made by an employee during the course of employment and the case of Bolton Partners v. Lambert (1889) 41 Ch D 295 which emphasized the liability for fraud committed by agents within the scope of authority. See also section 7 of the Employers Liability Act which stipulates the liability of employers for injuries sustained by employees due to employer's negligence. A master is liable for the following:

1. Negligence: these are acts or omissions causing harm.
2. Intentional torts: these are assault, battery, and other intentional wrongs if committed during employment.
3. Fraud or theft: this happens only if the servant’s actions were within the scope of employment.

FRAUD OR THEFT BY SERVANTS

Masters can be held liable for fraudulent acts or thefts committed by their servants if such acts were within the scope of their employment. These acts must occur during the performance of employment duties and the servant must have actual or apparent authority to act on behalf of the master. See the case of Anyaebosi v. R. T. Briscoe (Nig.) Ltd (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 59) 84 where the employer was liable for fraudulent acts of an employee within the scope of his employment and the case of Bamgboye v. University of Ilorin (1999) 10 NWLR (Pt. 622) 290 where the employer held liable for theft committed by an employee. See also section 12 of the Criminal Code Act which addresses the liability of principals for offenses committed by agents. The scope of liability includes the following;

1. Fraud: this is where there must be misrepresentation or deceit for financial gain.
2. Theft: this is where there must be unauthorized taking of property.

VEHICLE OWNERS AND CASUAL AGENTS

Owners of vehicles may be held liable for tortious acts committed by casual agents (e.g., drivers) operating their vehicles. The driver must be acting as an agent of the owner and the acts must occur while performing duties for the owner. See the case of Ogundare v. Ogunlowo (1997) 6 NWLR (Pt. 509) 360 where the vehicle owner was held liable for negligence of driver who was deemed an agent and the case of Nigeria Airways Ltd v. Abe (1988) 4 NWLR (Pt. 90) 524 which established principles for liability of vehicle owners for drivers' actions. See also section 280 of the Criminal Code Act which addresses liability for negligence involving vehicles. The scope of liability includes the following;

1. Negligence: this is where the accidents were caused by careless driving.
2. Intentional torts: Acts like assault by the driver.

LIABILITY FOR INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS

An independent contractor is one who undertakes to perform a service but retains control over how the task is executed. Generally, the employer is not liable for the torts of independent contractors, but exceptions exist. See the case of Ibekwe v. Maduka (2017) LPELR-43495(CA) where the employer was held liable for negligent hiring of an independent contractor and the case of Nigerian Bottling Co. Ltd v. Ngonadi (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 4) 739 which established liability for non-delegable duties. See also section 426 of the Labour Act which outlines employer responsibilities and potential liabilities in hiring contractors. The exceptions to non-liability includes the following;

1. Negligent hiring: this is when the employer negligently selects an incompetent contractor.
2. Non-delegable duties: this talks about duties that the employer cannot delegate, such as safety obligations.
3. Hazardous activities: this is when the work involves inherently dangerous activities.

CONCLUSION

The principles of liability for torts committed by servants, fraud or theft by servants, vehicle owners and casual agents, and independent contractors underscore the importance of understanding the scope and nature of employment and agency relationships. Nigerian case law and statutory provisions provide a robust framework for determining liability and ensuring victims receive compensation.