Facts:'M' appointed 'D' exclusively for the purpose of driving his tourist vehicle 'M' also appointed 'C' exclusively for the purpose of performing the work of a conductor for the tourist vehicle. During one trip, at the end of the journey, 'C' while 'D' was not on the driver’s seat and apparently for the purpose of turning the vehicle in the right direction for the next journey drove it through the street at high speed and negligently injured 'P'.
- 'M' could be made liable for the act of 'C' as has his (C's) act of driving the vehicle was within his scope of employment
- 'M' is not liable as he was not present at the time of the accident
- 'M' could not be made liable for the act of 'C' as has his (C's) act of driving the vehicle was not in the scope of employment
- 'M' could be made liable for the act of 'C' as 'C' was employed under a contract service
Answers
Answer:
he was not present at the time of the accident
- 'M' could not be made liable for the act of 'C' as has his (C's) act of driving the vehicle was not in the scope of employment
- 'M' could be made liable for the act of 'C' as 'C' was employed under a contract service
Answer:
turning the vehicle in the right direction for the next journey drove it through the street at high speed and negligently injured 'P'.
- 'M' could be made liable for the act of 'C' as has his (C's) act of driving the vehicle was within his scope of employment
- 'M' is not liable as he was not present at the time of the accident
- 'M' could not be made liable for the act of 'C' as has his (C's) act of driving the vehicle was not in the scope of employment
- 'M' could be made liable for the act of 'C' as 'C' was employed under a contract service