https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196648 A master is liable only for acts done in the course of employment, not for an independent wrongful act done by a servant for personal pleasure. Applying that principle, the driver's act of taking the jeep from the workshop was within employment, but his later joy-ride and carrying unauthorised passengers were outside the scope of employment. Because the passengers were gratuitous lift-takers and the driver had no express or implied authority to carry them, the State was not vicariously liable for their deaths. Liability, if any, was left to rest on the driver alone. en-us Wed, 01 Dec 1976 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Dec 2017 12:53:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196648 A master is liable only for acts done in the course of employment, not for an independent wrongful act done by a servant for personal pleasure. Applying that principle, the driver's act of taking the jeep from the workshop was within employment, but his later joy-ride and carrying unauthorised passengers were outside the scope of employment. Because the passengers were gratuitous lift-takers and the driver had no express or implied authority to carry them, the State was not vicariously liable for their deaths. Liability, if any, was left to rest on the driver alone. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 01 Dec 1976 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196648