Experts call for change in holding those responsible for public accidents

The recent arrest of film actor Allu Arjun following a stampede at a cinema hall that resulted in the death of a woman and left her son seriously injured raises questions about the application of vicarious liability a legal principle that holds one party accountable for the actions of anotherIf such a principle were applied consistently then incidents like the recent BEST bus accidents which claimed eight lives and left 49 injured would demand that the general manager of BEST or the state itself be held responsiblelsquoVicarious liabilityrsquoldquoThe tragic incident involving Allu Arjun brings to light the urgent need for judicial clarity on vicarious liability particularly in highprofile cases involving celebrities The higher courts must intervene to set clear precedents that delineate when vicarious liability applies and when it does not ensuring that accountability is fixed fairly and proportionatelyrdquo said Mohini Priya advocate on record Supreme Court of IndiaMerited scrutinyldquoIn cases involving public transport and railway accidents there is often a tendency to prioritise immediate visible actorsmdashsuch as celebrities drivers or onsite personnelmdashas scapegoats while systemic failures go unaddressed This approach risks creating a precedent where liability is driven more by publicity than by the principles of justice and causation For instance while the recent Mumbai BEST accident highlighted direct negligence by the driver the lack of proper training and oversight by the employer pointed to deeper institutional failures that merited scrutinyrdquo she saidJudicial clarityldquoHigher courts play a crucial role in distinguishing between direct causation and systemic failures They must establish clear guidelines on vicarious liability to prevent its selective or excessive application in highprofile cases This will ensure that liability is fixed on those genuinely responsiblemdashwhether it is the celebrity the organisers or institutional entitiesmdashbased on the evidence and not influenced by public outrage or media sensationalismrdquo she addedFix accountabilityldquoIf such a principle were applied consistently then incidents like the recent BEST bus accidents which have claimed eight lives and left 49 injured would demand that the general manager of BEST or the state itself be held responsiblerdquo said Advocate Godfrey Pimenta ldquoSimilarly every year numerous lives are lost due to potholes on roads open manholes and unguarded pits dug for construction purposes In such cases justice demands that the municipal commissioner and other responsible officials be held vicariously liable for the resulting deaths and injuries caused by their negligencerdquo Pimenta saidAdditionally in the eastern suburbs many nursing homes operate illegally from groundplusone structures equipped with airconditioning systems but lacking essential fire safety measures including fire escape exits The failure of the BMC to take action against these violations constitutes deliberate negligencerdquo Pimenta saidExtent of operationldquoVicarious Liability as defined by the Blackrsquos Dictionary is ldquoLiability that a supervisory party bears for an actionable conduct of a subordinate or associate based on the relationship of the two parties Understanding this would mean that there ought to exist the following elements An actionable conduct for criminal law mens rea and actus reus A supervisorsubordinate relationship such as an employeremployee or principalagent relationshiprdquo said Advocate Floyd Gracias counsel Supreme CourtVolenti Vs VicariousldquoAnother interesting point to be highlighted especially in the recent Allu Arjun case is the fact that people voluntarily partake in such events Therefore the question of ldquoVolenti Non Fit Injuriardquo applies This means that a person cannot seek an injury claim that they have voluntarily exposed themselves tordquo said Advocate GraciasExpert viewldquoGenerally a person is liable for his wrongful acts In certain cases however under the law of torts vicarious liability that is the liability of one person for the act done by another person may arise on account of a special relationship A master could be held liable vicariously for such torts which are committed by the servant in the course of employmentDepending on the fact whether the act is authorised or not by the master there is a difference in how the liability will ensue under civil and criminal law Under criminal law the master is liable only for authorised acts along with the servant if such an act is done in the course of employment However the master is not liable for unauthorised acts and only the servant is liable However under civil law the master is liable for authorised acts as well as unauthorised acts done in the course of employment along with the servantrdquo explained Solicitor Stuti GaliyaCourt directives overlookedldquoThe Supreme Court has on various occasions held that celebrities cannot be held vicariously liable for crowd mismanagement unless direct involvement is proven The Indian Constitution guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the law However when laws are applied differently there is increasing debate on responsibility and accountability which erodes the common publicrsquos faith in the justicelaw enforcement systemrdquo said Galiya