qui facit per alium facit per se
1. Meaning of “Qui facit per alium facit per se”
Latin Phrase: “Qui facit per alium facit per se”
Translation: “He who acts through another does the act himself.”
Explanation: This principle implies that if a person employs another to perform an act, any tortious or wrongful act committed by the agent is treated as if the principal committed it himself.
It is a fundamental principle in vicarious liability in tort law.
2. Scope in Tort Law
This principle is primarily applied in cases involving:
Employers and employees: Acts done by an employee in the course of employment may make the employer liable.
Principal and agent: Acts done by an agent within the scope of authority may make the principal liable.
Independent contractors: Liability may depend on control and scope of authority.
The underlying idea is that the principal cannot escape liability by merely claiming that the wrongful act was done by someone else.
3. Essentials for Application
For this principle to apply, the following must exist:
Principal-agent or employer-employee relationship: There must be a recognized relationship of authority.
Act done in the course of employment or authority: The act must be connected with the duties assigned.
Tortious or wrongful act: The act must cause injury, loss, or damage to another.
Causation: There should be a direct link between the act of the agent and the injury.
4. Case Law Illustrations
(i) Lloyd v. Grace, Smith & Co. (1912) AC 716
Facts: An employee of a law firm, without the knowledge of the firm, misappropriated money from a client.
Decision: The law firm (principal) was held liable because the act was done by the agent in the course of employment.
Principle: The firm cannot escape liability because the wrongful act was committed by an employee. This illustrates “Qui facit per alium facit per se.”
(ii) Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v. Salaam (2002) 2 AC 366
Facts: A partner in a law firm committed a fraudulent act. The firm was sued for the partner’s wrongdoing.
Decision: The House of Lords held that the firm was vicariously liable, as the partner acted within the apparent scope of authority.
Principle: The wrongful acts of agents or partners, if committed in the course of duties, bind the principal or firm.
(iii) Central London Property Trust Ltd v. High Trees House Ltd (1947) KB 130
Although more known for promissory estoppel, the case reinforces the principle of responsibility for acts done through agents in contractual and tortious contexts.
5. Key Points
The principle does not automatically apply if the agent acts outside the scope of authority.
Employers/principals are liable only for acts done in the course of employment or authority.
Liability can extend to both civil and, in some cases, criminal acts done by the agent within the scope of authority.
It is a cornerstone of vicarious liability in torts.
6. Practical Example
A delivery company hires a driver. The driver negligently hits a pedestrian while delivering goods.
Using “Qui facit per alium facit per se”, the company (principal) is liable because the driver was acting within the course of employment.
7. Conclusion
“Qui facit per alium facit per se” establishes that a principal cannot escape liability for the acts of an agent done in the course of duty. It ensures accountability in tort law, particularly in employer-employee and principal-agent relationships.
RELATED Blog
0 comments