Skip to content

CS Executive · Jurisprudence, Interpretation and General Laws · Law of Torts

A bank's cashier, employed to receive deposits, fraudulently misappropriated money handed over by a customer in the bank's counter, intending to benefit himself. Applying the 'close connection' approach to the course of employment, the bank is:

The bank is liable. A master answers for a servant's wrongful act, even a fraud for personal gain, when it is closely connected with the work the servant was employed to do, here receiving deposits at the counter.

  1. ANot liable, because fraud can never be within employment
  2. BLiable only if the bank had expressly authorised the fraud
  3. CLiable, because the wrongful act was so closely connected with the duties the cashier was employed to performCorrect
  4. DLiable only to the extent of the cashier's salary

Explanation

A master is liable for a servant's wrongful act, even if fraudulent or for his own benefit, if it is so closely connected with the authorised duties that it is a mode of doing them. Receiving deposits was the cashier's job. Option A is wrong because an unauthorised mode of doing an authorised act still falls in employment.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Law of Torts shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Law of TortsFree diagnostic mock

More Law of Torts questions