Question

Principle: Employer is liable for the injury caused to the employee in the course of his employment.
Facts: X organized a party and hired a caterer. During the party, the generator set went out of order and he requested one employee of caterer i.e. Y to bring the mechanic on his vehicle and promised to pay 1000 for the same to Y. Y met with an accident while going to fetch the mechanic and he seeks compensation.

• A. X is liable as Y was working in the course of employment offered by X
• B. X is not liable as Y is not his employee
• C. X is liable because party was organized by him
• D. Caterer is liable as Y is his employee

Hint:

Employers can be held liable for injuries caused to employees if the injury occurs while performing tasks assigned by the employer during the course of employment.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

According to the principle, the employer is responsible for injuries caused to the employee while they are performing duties in the course of their employment. In this case, Y, who is working as an employee of the caterer, was carrying out duties in connection with the party organized by X. Since Y was asked by X to fetch a mechanic and was on the way to do that when the accident occurred, this was a task given to Y as part of his duties for X. Thus, the employer (X) is liable for the injury sustained by Y during the course of employment.
Therefore, the correct answer is (A).
Option (B) is incorrect because, although Y is not directly employed by X, he was performing a task assigned by X. Option (C) is incorrect because the liability stems from Y performing his duties under X's instructions, not simply because the party was organized by X. Option (D) is incorrect because the caterer may not be liable in this case, as Y's actions were directed by X.

Answer 2

The rule says an employer answers for injury an employee suffers while carrying out work in the course of that employment. The facts show X asking Y, a caterer's employee, to fetch a mechanic in exchange for payment, and Y getting hurt on that errand. Let's check each option.

1. X is liable as Y was working in the course of employment offered by X: By promising to pay Y 1000 rupees to fetch a mechanic, X effectively engaged Y for that specific task, creating a temporary employment relationship for that errand. Y was hurt while carrying out exactly that task, so the injury arose in the course of the employment X offered him. This matches the rule.
2. X is not liable as Y is not his employee: While Y's regular employer is the caterer, X separately engaged Y for the errand of fetching the mechanic and agreed to pay him for it. That arrangement makes X Y's employer for the purpose of this specific task, so denying any employment relationship with X ignores the facts.
3. X is liable because party was organized by him: Merely organising the party does not, by itself, make X liable for every injury connected to the event. Liability here flows specifically from X directing Y to do a task and promising payment for it, not from the general fact that X hosted the party.
4. Caterer is liable as Y is his employee: Y is the caterer's regular employee, but the errand that led to the accident was assigned by X, not by the caterer, and X promised to pay for it separately. Since the task fell outside what the caterer had asked Y to do, the caterer is not the one who should answer for it.

X specifically engaged Y for the errand and agreed to pay him, so the accident happened while Y was working in the course of the employment X offered.

Therefore, the correct answer is X is liable as Y was working in the course of employment offered by X.

Answer 3

Courts often decide who counts as an "employer" for a given task by asking who had the right to control how, when and by whom the task was done, not by looking only at someone's regular payroll. Applying this control test here, X is the one who told Y exactly what to do, fetch the mechanic, and offered to pay him 1000 rupees for doing it, which puts X in control of that specific task regardless of who normally pays Y's wages.

1. X is liable as Y was working in the course of employment offered by X: X directed Y to perform a specific errand and promised payment for it, satisfying the control test for that task. Since Y was injured while carrying out exactly the task X controlled, X is liable as the employer for that errand.
2. X is not liable as Y is not his employee: This looks only at Y's regular payroll relationship with the caterer and ignores that X separately directed and agreed to pay Y for the errand. Control over the specific task is what fixes liability here, and X held that control, so this option misapplies the test.
3. X is liable because party was organized by him: Simply hosting the party does not, on its own, satisfy the control test, X organising an event is not the same as X directing a specific task and paying for it. Liability tracks the errand X controlled, not the event generally.
4. Caterer is liable as Y is his employee: The caterer did not direct or control the mechanic-fetching errand at all, X did, and the caterer had no say over that specific task. Since the caterer lacked control over the very act that caused the injury, liability cannot rest with the caterer.

Because X controlled the specific task Y was performing when he was hurt, and promised to pay him for it, X is the one answerable under the principle.

Therefore, the correct answer is X is liable as Y was working in the course of employment offered by X.