According to Malemi (2008), vicarious liability is any situation where one person is liable for the conduct, or tort of another person, because of a relationship existing between them and the wrongdoer, including an employer - employee relationship. It is a species of torts that consists in fixing an employer with liability for the tort committed by his employee while the latter is in the course of his employment. Based on social justice and of universal acceptation, more so under common law regimes, it is nevertheless adapted to the specific needs and peculiar circumstances of each jurisdiction. Can governments be held vicariously liable for damage caused by protesters or rioters? Can employers deduct from the wages/salaries of their employees as indemnity for losses suffered vicariously? If yes, can they deduct above the employees' minimum wage? Though vicarious liability is of common law origin and thus generally based on case law, in recent times, statutes have continued to make in-roads in shaping the operation and/or application of the doctrine both in Nigeria and England. In the main, unlike in England where the modern approach to vicarious liability is progressive and expansive, the Nigerian regime appears to be restrictive and narrow, being inclined to “classical vicarious liability.” It is recommended that judicial functions/activism and legislative actions in Nigeria should be geared towards a progressive interpretation of vicarious liability to bring Nigerian jurisprudence up to speed with modern legal development. After all, the essence of vicarious liability is to ensure that no victims of torts committed by employees in the course of their employment should be left without prompt and adequate compensation. Therefore, since employers are financially in a better position to ensure such compensation, to that extent, they should be made to bear the burden of vicarious liability.