Is the way in which the servant does an act relevant for fixing liability of his master?
A master is responsible not merely for what he authorises his servant to do but also for the way in which he does it. It is link of the master’s business with the servant’s wrongful act which makes the master liable. So the plaintiff to obtain a judgment against the master “must establish a relationship between the servant’s act and the master‘s business. Considerations of time, place, equipment and purpose will all be relevant to this purely factual determination. If the unauthorised and wrongful act of the servant is not so connected with authorised act as to be the mode of doing it, but is an independent act, the master is not responsible for is such a case the servant is not acting in the course of his employment but has gone outside of it.