Case Law On Corporate Employer Liability
⚖️ CORPORATE EMPLOYER LIABILITY — OVERVIEW
Corporate Employer Liability refers to the legal responsibility of a company (the employer) for the wrongful acts or omissions of its employees or agents done in the course of employment. This principle mainly arises under the doctrine of vicarious liability, which means:
“He who acts through another does the act himself.”
In simpler terms, a company can be held responsible for the acts of its employees if:
The act was done in the course of employment, even if it was unauthorized or negligent.
The act was closely connected with what the employee was supposed to do.
The employer derived benefit or control from the employee’s work that caused the harm.
🧑⚖️ 1. Lloyd v. Grace, Smith & Co. (1912) AC 716 (House of Lords)
Facts:
Mrs. Lloyd, a client of a law firm (Grace, Smith & Co.), visited the firm’s office to discuss selling her property.
The managing clerk of the firm deceitfully induced her to sign documents transferring her property to him personally.
The clerk then misappropriated the property and absconded.
Issue:
Was the law firm liable for the fraudulent acts of its clerk?
Held:
The House of Lords held that the firm was liable for the fraudulent acts of its employee.
Even though the clerk acted for his own benefit, his actions were done in the course of his employment — i.e., while conducting firm business.
Principle:
An employer can be held liable for fraudulent acts of an employee committed during the course of employment, even if the act was not authorized and was done for personal gain.
🧑⚖️ 2. State Bank of India v. Shyama Devi (1978) 3 SCC 399
Facts:
An employee of the State Bank of India accepted money from a customer (Shyama Devi) to deposit into her account.
The employee, however, pocketed the money and issued a fake receipt.
The customer sued the bank for recovery.
Issue:
Is the bank vicariously liable for the fraudulent acts of its employee?
Held:
The Supreme Court held that the bank was not liable because the employee’s act was done outside the scope of his employment — it was a personal act of dishonesty, not part of his official duties.
Principle:
When an employee acts outside the course of employment or commits an act purely for personal benefit, the employer is not liable.
🧑⚖️ 3. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. NEPC India Ltd. (2006) 6 SCC 736
Facts:
NEPC India Ltd. alleged that Indian Oil’s officers wrongfully seized its aircrafts under the pretext of non-payment of dues.
The issue involved misuse of corporate powers by company officials.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that corporate liability can arise if the company’s employees or agents commit acts under the company’s authority or in furtherance of its business, even if wrongful.
Principle:
A corporation, being an artificial person, can act only through its employees or agents. Thus, the acts of managerial employees bind the corporation if done within the scope of their authority.
🧑⚖️ 4. Lister v. Hesley Hall Ltd. [2001] UKHL 22
Facts:
A school employed a warden for a boarding hostel.
The warden sexually abused the children under his care.
The victims sued the employer (the school authority) for damages.
Issue:
Can the employer be held liable for the intentional criminal acts of its employee?
Held:
The House of Lords held that the employer was vicariously liable because the wrongful acts were closely connected with the warden’s duties — he was entrusted with care of children, which created the opportunity for abuse.
Principle:
An employer can be liable for an employee’s intentional or criminal acts if there is a close connection between the employee’s duties and the wrongful act.
🧑⚖️ 5. Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v. Coggins & Griffith (Liverpool) Ltd. (1947) AC 1
Facts:
A crane driver, employed by Mersey Docks, was lent to another company (Coggins & Griffith).
While operating the crane, he negligently injured a worker.
The question was: which company was liable — the original employer or the borrowing employer?
Held:
The House of Lords held that the original employer (Mersey Docks) remained liable because it retained control over the manner in which the driver performed his work.
Principle:
The key test for determining liability is control — who had control over the employee’s work at the time of the negligent act.
🧑⚖️ 6. Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking v. Basanti Devi (1999) 8 SCC 229
Facts:
A lineman of DESU died due to electric shock while on duty.
His widow sought compensation for negligence.
Held:
The Supreme Court held the employer liable for failing to provide a safe system of work, since it was the employer’s duty to ensure safety measures.
Principle:
Corporate employers have a non-delegable duty to ensure workplace safety; failure to do so results in direct liability for negligence, not merely vicarious liability.
📚 SUMMARY OF KEY PRINCIPLES
| Principle | Key Case | Rule Established |
|---|---|---|
| Acts done in course of employment | Lloyd v. Grace, Smith & Co. | Employer liable for employee’s fraud done within apparent authority |
| Acts outside employment (personal acts) | SBI v. Shyama Devi | Employer not liable for purely personal acts |
| Corporate acts through agents | Indian Oil v. NEPC India Ltd. | Corporation acts through employees; liable if acts authorized |
| Close connection test | Lister v. Hesley Hall Ltd. | Employer liable even for intentional torts closely connected to duties |
| Control test for borrowed employees | Mersey Docks v. Coggins | Employer with effective control is liable |
| Employer’s own negligence | DESU v. Basanti Devi | Direct liability for failure to ensure safety |
🏁 CONCLUSION
Corporate employer liability is based on both vicarious and direct liability principles.
A corporation may be:
Vicariously liable for employees’ acts done in the course of employment; and
Directly liable for its own negligence (e.g., failing to provide safe systems, negligent supervision, or training).
Thus, the line between the employee’s personal acts and acts done “in course of employment” is the key factor determining corporate responsibility.
RELATED Blog
0 comments