• This problem is based on the principle of vicarious liability.
• In this case Nafula is the master and her employee the servant.
• As the master, Nafula is liable for torts committed by her employee in the course of her employment.
• It is apparent that by throwing rubbish into Atieno‟s compound, Nafula‟s employee was not acting in the course of her employee and Natula is therefore not liable.
• My advise to Atieno is that since her proprietary rights have been violated she has an
actionable claim against Nafula‟s employee in damages.