The answer is: A
Explanation
The correct option is A: B is liable for A's negligence and is liable to pay compensation to the victims.
Explanation:
According to the principle, to establish vicarious liability, the courts must find first that there exists a relationship of employee and employer between the parties. The employer is usually liable when the employer orders or dictates what work was to be done and how it was to be done, and if the tort is committed by the employee in the course of employment.
In this case, B employs A to be the conductor of a bus owned by B. This means that there exists a relationship of employee and employer between A and B. B orders or dictates what work was to be done by A, which is to conduct the bus. A drives the bus negligently and injures several people on the road. This means that A committed a tort (negligence) in the course of employment, as driving the bus was part of A's work. Therefore, B is liable for A's negligence and is liable to pay compensation to the victims as per the principle.
The other options are incorrect because they either ignore or contradict the principle. A and B are both liable for A's negligence is wrong, as vicarious liability does not mean joint liability. Only A is liable for A's negligence, as B did not dictate how A's work was to be done is wrong, as B did dictate what work was to be done by A, which is enough for vicarious liability. B is not liable for A's negligence, as A was not in the course of employment when he was driving the bus is wrong, as A was in the course of employment when he was driving the bus, as it was part of his work. A is liable for A's negligence, but B is liable for negligence in hiring A is wrong, as B's liability does not depend on his negligence in hiring A, but on his relationship with A.