Summary: (a) Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 – Negligence – Vicarious Liability: ----Suit for damages filed under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 by the legal heirs of two deceased individuals who lost their lives in a road accident caused by the negligent driving of a dumper truck by Defendant No.1 (Driver) – Defendant No.1, while operating a heavy vehicle with only an LTV license, negligently collided with a motorcycle, causing the death of both riders – Defendant No.2 (Owner) permitted the Driver to operate the vehicle despite his lack of qualification, thereby making him vicariously liable – Plaintiffs sought damages amounting to Rs. 50,400,000/-. (b) Burden of Proof – Application of "Res Ipsa Loquitur": ----Plaintiffs successfully established the factum of the accident – Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, once the accident was proven, the burden shifted upon the Defendants to disprove negligence – Defendants failed to appear in civil proceedings despite participating in related criminal proceedings – The absence of cross-examination on the Plaintiffs' evidence led to an adverse presumption against the Defendants under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 – Factum of accident held to be established. Cited Cases: • Najma Parveen v. Karachi Transport Corporation (2004 MLD 518) • Ehteshamuddin Qureshi v. Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation (2004 MLD 361) • Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Ltd. v. Malik Abdul Habib (1993 SCMR 848) • Punjab Road Transport Corporation v. Zahid Afzal (2006 SCMR 207) (c) Composite Negligence – Liability of Vehicle Owner: ----Owner of the vehicle held jointly and severally liable with the Driver under the doctrine of composite negligence – As the vehicle was negligently entrusted to an unqualified driver, the Owner became liable for damages arising from his actions – Supreme Court precedent confirmed that a master is liable for the tortious acts of his servant within the scope of employment – Both Defendants ordered to pay damages jointly and severally. Cited Cases: • National Logistics Cell v. Irfan Khan (2015 SCMR 1406) • Pakistan Railways v. Abdul Haqique (1991 SCMR 657) (d) Computation of Damages – Life Expectancy – Loss of Earning Capacity: ----Court computed damages based on the victims' assumed life expectancy of 65 years – Victim No.1’s monthly income taken as Rs.50,000, and damages calculated for remaining 32 years – Victim No.2’s earnings were estimated post-majority at the same rate, resulting in total damages of Rs.47,400,000/- – Defendants ordered to pay additional markup at 15% per annum from the date of suit till realization – Decretal amount to be distributed among legal heirs as per Shariah law. ----Disposition: Suit decreed. Defendants held jointly and severally liable for damages, with markup at 15% per annum until realization.

Summary: (Bail Denied---Exceptions to rule of granting bail in non-prohibitory clause offences; and (ii) gravity of the offence of housebreaking by night, (iii) vicarious liability)--- The petitioner, along with others, entered the complainant's house and subjected him and his family members to intimidation. The petitioner allegedly dragged his daughter-in-law out onto the street and shot his son, causing his death. The petitioner and his accomplices also caused injuries to other family members. The courts below found sufficient incriminating evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged offenses, leading to the denial of post-arrest bail. The petitioner's counsel argued that there was insufficient evidence to establish the petitioner's involvement in the crimes. Alternatively, it was argued that the offense of intentional homicide was not attributed to the petitioner, and his vicarious liability under Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code could only be determined during the trial. The counsel further contended that since some of the offenses did not fall within the prohibitory clause, the petitioner should be granted post-arrest bail under Section 497(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. After hearing arguments from both sides and examining the record of the case, the court found that the allegations against the petitioner were supported by witness statements, including the injured witness and residents of the house where the incident occurred. The court also noted that CCTV footage corroborated the incident. Consequently, there was sufficient incriminating material to connect the petitioner with the offenses, and the findings of the lower courts were not arbitrary or perverse. The court addressed the question of vicarious liability, stating that it could be considered at the bail stage, but in this case, even if the question was left for determination during the trial, the petitioner was not entitled to bail based on the facts and circumstances. The court further explained the exceptions to granting bail in non-prohibitory clause offenses, which include the likelihood of absconding, tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or repeating the offense. In this case, the court found that the petitioner, being the father of the alleged abductee, had a motive for the offenses, and there was a likelihood of absconding. Additionally, the abductee had not been recovered, and there was a possibility of harm or coercion if the petitioner were released on bail. Thus, the exceptions justifying the denial of bail were applicable in this case. The court also noted that the offenses involved the sanctity and privacy of the home, protected by Article 14 of the Constitution. The severity of the crimes and the importance of ensuring safety within one's home were emphasized. Based on these reasons, the court found no legal fault in the High Court's decision to deny post-arrest bail to the petitioner. The petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.

Summary: The case revolves around the tort committed by the appellant and the issue of vicarious liability for the actions of its officials. The specific tort in question is a tort of interest in property. The respondent claims that he suffered economic loss and mental agony as a result of the appellant's actions and seeks redressal for his losses. The supreme court held that a a suit for damages for tortious liability can be initiated against a state entity, it also stated that a corporation can be held liable for the acts of its officials under vicarious liability if the act is so closely connected. SC also discussed the concept of sovereign immunity and its applicability in Pakistan. It states that the Crown of England, representing the government, cannot be sued for any wrongdoings and is not held responsible for its acts. However, this principle does not apply to the government of Pakistan, which is a legal entity with defined powers. The government is subject to scrutiny and control by the courts and can be held accountable for its actions. The text refers to various court cases that establish the liability of the government for the tortious acts of its employees. Thus, the appeal was found to be without merit and dismissed, order of the high court and lower courts was upheld, the respondent was awarded the damages.

Summary: Principle of Vicarious liability could be looked into even at Bail Stage, if from the FIR, accused appeared to have acted in Pre-concert or shared to Community of intention with his Co-Accused who caused this heinous unnatural Act, Since petitioner has shared common intention with co-Accused thus the Supra Principle will attract.

Summary: ''Where the wrong, damage or injury is caused by two or more persons, each of the wrongdoer is jointly and severally liable to make good the loss to the claimant who suffered at the hands of such tortfeasors. It is the prerogative of the plaintiff to proceed against any or all such wrongdoers. Where a person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrongdoers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrongdoers. On the other hand, where a person suffers injury, partly due to his own negligence, then the negligence on the part of the injured which contributed to the accident is referred to as his contributory negligence.'' ---- Issue: Whether the NLC, its driver, and the Karachi Development Authority (KDA), later succeeded by the City District Government Karachi (CDGK), were liable for compensation to the legal heirs of Sher Azam Khan due to the fatal accident. --- Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower courts' decisions holding the NLC, its driver, and the CDGK/KDA jointly and severally liable for the accident and compensating the legal heirs of Sher Azam Khan.Reasoning:The Court found that the evidence supported the conclusion of composite negligence involving the NLC driver and the CDGK/KDA.It was established that the NLC driver's rash driving and the CDGK/KDA's failure to take necessary safety measures during road repairs contributed to the fatal accident.The Court emphasized that in cases of composite negligence, each wrongdoer is jointly and severally liable for the entire damages, allowing the victim or their legal heirs to proceed against any or all of the tortfeasors.The NLC's attempt to shift the entire liability to the CDGK/KDA was rejected, as both parties were found to have contributed to the circumstances leading to the accident.Significance: This judgment underscores the legal principle of joint and several liabilities in cases of composite negligence, where multiple parties' negligent acts contribute to a single event causing harm or loss. It reaffirms the responsibility of both vehicle operators and civic authorities to ensure public safety and the potential for joint liability when their combined negligence leads to tragic outcomes.

Summary: ''The principle of vicarious liability is not attracted in the case of sudden flare-up as strictly as in the case where crime is committed in a pre-planned and well-calculated manner.'' ---- The case centered around Haider Zaman's report of a crime that occurred on January 23, 1997, where he alleged that Sadiq Shah, along with others, had committed murder and inflicted injuries. The motive for the crime was attributed to a prior altercation. The investigation yielded various pieces of evidence, including bullets, empty cartridges, and a magazine of a Kalashnikov. Sadiq Shah surrendered to the police, while other accused remained at large. Following a trial, Sadiq Shah was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment and fines. On appeal, the Peshawar High Court acquitted Sadiq Shah of all charges.The Supreme Court noted certain inconsistencies and peculiarities in the case. Haider Zaman was not an eyewitness to the crime and did not accompany the injured victims to the hospital, despite being related to one of them. Eye-witnesses on the scene did not report the crime to the police. Moreover, discrepancies were found in the testimony of the injured victims, and their accounts appeared to be rehearsed. Medical evidence contradicted their claim of unconsciousness upon reaching the hospital.The Court refrained from discussing the merits of the case in detail due to the remaining absconding accused and the possibility of prejudice. However, it noted that the incident appeared to be a sudden altercation rather than a pre-planned crime, and the principle of vicarious liability did not apply strictly in such cases. Considering Sadiq Shah's already served prison time and the suppressed cause of the incident, the Court concluded that re-sentencing him after his acquittal would not be just. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.The Court emphasized that its remarks on the merits of the case should not prejudice the prosecution's case against the absconding accused when they surrender and are tried, and their cases would be decided strictly based on the merits and evidence presented during their trials.

Summary: Bail granted ---- Vicarious liability of the accused would be determined at the trial after recording evidence --- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S.497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/324/34/147/148/149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt tocommit Qatl-i-amd, rioting---Bail, grant of---Accused were not nominated in the F.I.R.---Complainant and two eye-witnesses had implicated the accused in this supplementarystatements--No other incriminating evidence was so far available to prima facie connect theaccused with the commission of the offence---Vicarious liability of the accused in the crimewould be determined at the trial after recording evidence---Case against accused was one offurther inquiry---Nothing incriminating had been recovered from the accused during policeinvestigation---Accused could not be detained in jail for indefinite period and bail could notbe withhold as a punishment---Bail was allowed to accused in circumstances.PLJ 1999 SC 727; 1997 PCr.LJ 494; 2000 PCr.LJ 1096; 1996 SCMR 1654; 1980 SCMR 784;1994 SCMR 2051; 1997 SCMR 445; 1990 SCMR 346 and 2002 PCr.LJ 1532 ref.