Read the following passage and answer the question.
Since ancient times, it is the rule that a person should be held liable for his own mistake. In the words of Plato: "a person should be held for his own sins". But, in the thirteenth century, in England, it was for the first time, established that the master would be liable for his servant's or slave's torts only when there is an express command of the master to the servant's wrong.
By the end of the 17th century, this concept of liability was found inadequate due to the rise in commercial transactions. A new development took place when Sir John Holt, in the case of Tubewille v Stamp (1697), held that "the master would be liable for his servant's tort if he had given his implied command". There is a maxim 'qui facit per alium facit per se' which means 'he who does an act though another is deemed in law to do it himself, on which the vicarious liability of principal for the tort of his agent is based. Usually, a person is liable for his tortious acts. But if he shares certain types of relationships with another person, that person might be liable for the wrongful act.
A principal is vicariously liable for the tort of his agent committed within the course of his authority. An agent is a person who, otherwise than as a servant and otherwise than as an independent contractor, whether by way of contract or only by way of request, conducts some business or performs some act or series of acts on behalf of another, i.e. principal. The liability of the master for the tort which has been committed by his servant is based on the maxim 'respondent superior' i.e. superior is responsible. In law, it is established that he who employs another to do something does it himself, or he who does an act through another is deemed in law to do it himself.
Question :
The principal is vicariously liable for the things done by the agent but the principal is not responsible for the omissions of the agent. The given statement is-
True, the principal can be held liable only for the acts that cause damage and not for omissions
False, the principal is liable for both acts and omissions of the agent
Partly true, the principal is generally not liable for the omissions committed by the agent except in some special circumstances
None of the above
If anything which is done or told not to be done in the course of employment is performed otherwise then in case some damage is caused principal will be liable for both the acts and omissions of the agent. Omission means to omit or leave out something.