https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189392 Admissions made by a third party in pleadings or a reply notice cannot be used against an owner unless they are shown to bind him. On the evidence accepted by the majority, the owner had merely entrusted the taxi to another for hire, but there was no proof that he authorised that person to train or permit a third driver to use it for his own purposes. As the accident occurred outside the owner's business and authorised sphere, the necessary element of course of employment or scope of authority was absent, and vicarious liability did not arise. A dissenting judge took the opposite view and found the owner liable. en-us Tue, 08 Feb 1966 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Jan 2017 15:51:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189392 Admissions made by a third party in pleadings or a reply notice cannot be used against an owner unless they are shown to bind him. On the evidence accepted by the majority, the owner had merely entrusted the taxi to another for hire, but there was no proof that he authorised that person to train or permit a third driver to use it for his own purposes. As the accident occurred outside the owner's business and authorised sphere, the necessary element of course of employment or scope of authority was absent, and vicarious liability did not arise. A dissenting judge took the opposite view and found the owner liable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 08 Feb 1966 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189392