3.2 Principles of Vicarious Liability and its Scope

The idea: the one answers for another's wrong — "let the master answer" (the respondeat superior lore). The test: the servant's wrong in the course of employment (the employer's answer) vs the independent contractor's wrongs (the general no-liability, with the exceptions: the authorised-and-forbidden-manner lore, the non-delegable duties — the dangerous operations' faces). The relationship's faces: employer-employee; principal-agent; the partners' mutual answer; the state's answer (the state liability — the custodial-and-police wrongs; the constitutional layer of U1.7); the vehicle-owner's faces (the vicarious world of the road). The justifications: the control-and-profit logic (the "he who profits answers"), the loss-distribution's economics (the deep pocket), the enterprise's risk internalisation. The scope's debates: the intentional wrongs in the course (the fraud's faces), the frolic-and-detour line, the modern gig economy's questions.