LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Violation of a legal Right, with or without damage, give rise to a tort
FACTUAL SITUATION: ‘A’ establishes a coaching class and charge ‘5000 per year as fees. A’s neighbour ‘B’ establishes another coaching class thereby creating a competition. This forces A to reduce his fees to ‘3000 per year.
Q. Can ‘A’ claim damages from ‘B’ for the loss caused to him?
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: No remedy for the injury caused by an act; to which one has voluntarily consented.
FACTUAL SITUATION: In an exhibition cricket match, Sachin hit a full toss delivery of Shane Bond over the fence for a six. The ball fell on the head of Egghead, a spectator, and severely injured him. Egghead had purchased a ticket costing 1000 to watch the match. Egghead and the organizers of the match are sworn enemies.
LEGAL PRINCIPAL: Damage cannot be claimed against a risk to which consent has been given. The principal does not apply to rescue cases.
FACTUAL SITUATION: X and Y bought tickets to have a ringside view of a football match. During the course of the game a hard kick from one of the players caused the ball of hit X on his nose, causing bleeding and nausea. After half time the organizers allowed entry of more spectators than the seating capacity of the stadium. In the resulting stampede R and S who were watching the match since the beginning got injured. Five minutes before close of play, a part of the stadium rood broke loose. Y rushed to save children sitting beneath the roof and in the process injured herself. In separate actions filed by the injured persons, Decide
LEGAL PRINCIPAL: Even if the sovereign functions of the State are discharged negligently the state is not vicariously liable in tort.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A was a trader in gold. There he was arrested by police and was detained in the police lock up after search. The gold with him along with sundry other things were seized. Later he was discharged. His possessions seized by the police were returned, except the gold. He moved against the State in tort. In the words of Supreme Court, “There can be no escape from the conclusion that the Police Officers were negligent in dealing with the property after it was seized” One of the Constables was a Muslim. He fled with gold to Pakistan.
The correct answer is A. Stick to the principle.
Assertion (A): when you invite somebody to your house, you cannot sue him for trespass.
Reason (R): one cannot enforce a right which one has voluntarily waived or abandoned
‘X’ with a view to murdering ‘Y’ enters ‘Y’ bedroom at night when ‘Y’ is out of station. What is ‘X’ guilty of?
Legal principle: whoever uses force without any lawful justification is deemed to commit battery
Facts: Mary and Maya have an argument over an issue in the classroom. In order to take revenge over this Mary tries to humiliate maya in front of the other classmates by pulling the chair the moment she is about to sit on the chair. Though maya falls, she is not hurt. However she files a case against mary for battery.
Q. Is mary liable?
Battery is referred to as an intentional tort involving unwanted physical contact, that may or may not cause physical harm. The four essential requirements:
(1) Intent: the person accused of committing the act must have intended to cause some unwanted contact and not necessarily the harm that has been caused.
(2) Contact: It refers to a non-consensual contact that is made with the victim or to the victim's extended personality i.e. on any property on the body of the victim.
(3) Harm: It is not necessary to prove any actual physical injury. Rather the plaintiff must prove an unpermitted contact in a harmful or offensive manner.
(4) Damages: it includes physical, emotional or monetary harm.
In the present instance, all these instances have been proved against Mary.
Legal Principle: A person is entitled to use reasonable force for self defence.
Facts: Gokul was living in a farm house with a few family members. One night, a group of robbers broke open a door of the house and there was scuffle b/w the intruders and the residents. Gokul took out his pistol and fired a shot at one of the intruders. The shot did not hit the target and the robbers ran out of the house and by that time, the neighbors gathered in front of the house. Gokul in a fit of anger came out of the house and fired at fleeing robbers who by that time mingled with the neighbors. The shot injured a neighbor and he filed a suit against Gokul.
Gokul should have thought of bystanders. And there was no need to shoot the robbers as they ran out from the house. So Gokul is liable.
Legal principle: A master will be liable for the wrongful acts of his servants in the course of employment.
Facts: Mahesh was working as a driver in a company Lipton & Co. one day the manager asked him to drop a customer at the airport and get back at the earliest. On his way back from the airport, he happened to see his fiancé Roopa waiting for a bus to go home. He offered to drop her at home, which happened to be close to his office. She got into the car somersaulted due to the negligence of Mahesh. Roopa was thrown out of the car and suffered multiple injuries. She seeks compensation from Lipton & Co.
Lipton & Co. shall not be liable, because Mahesh was not in the course of employment when he took Roopa inside the car. And the master will only be liable when the mahesh is in the course of employment .
Legal principle: An unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land or some right over or in connection with it is a nuisance in tort.
Facts: Mr. Prasad filed suit against Mr. Shyam for a permanent injunction to restrain him from installing and running flour mill in their premises. According to Mr. Prasad, it created nuisance to them as they were put on the first floor of the same premises. Will his action succeed?
Complete the sentence:To constitute trespass actual damage is………………………..
In an action for trespass, burden to prove justification is on the…………………….
X actually beats B with a stick. He has committed the offence of………………….
A throws water on B and the drop of the water falls on B. A committed
Vicarious liability is based on which of the following principle?
Respondent superior means
In which of the following cases, ‘P’ did not owe duty of care to ‘Q’.
A is running a polyclinic well-equipped with operation theaters and supporting staff. S is a surgeon who makes use of this polyclinic to operate his patients. While operating a patient P, due to the negligence of nurse N (Who was a support staff of polyclinic), the surgical knife was left inside the abdomen of P. As a result, P developed several complications. Advise P as to against whom, i.e., A or S, he should file the suit for damages.
A is the correct option. A should be sued by P as Vicariously liable as the accident was caused by the negligence of his employee.
1. Negligence is the omission to do some-thing, which a reasonable man would do, breach of which, if it causes damage, makes one liable to the person who suffered loss.
2. One owes a duty of care to another, if a responsible man can foresee that he will be affected by the breach of duty.
3. One is not liable if the injured party volunteers to take the risk.
Factual Situation: A cricket match is being held in a stadium. Akshit, being unable to afford the ticket price, is viewing the cricket match sitting atop a branch of a nearby tree. When a batsman hits a ball over the boundary, the ball in turn hits Akshit and sustains injury on his spinal cord due to fall from the tree.
Whoever is under a duty of care to another shall be liable for any injury to the latter directly resulting from the breach of that duty.
2. Harm suffered voluntarily does not constitute legal injury.
Factual Situation: Gupta Confectioners sent certain items in a horse carriage to a customer's house, which happened to be by the side of a main road and near a school zone. The driver of the carriage delivered the items to the customers and went inside the house to collect the receipt, leaving the carriage unattended on tile road. Some naughty children nearby threw stones at the horses. The horses ran over confusion and were about to run over an old woman. A traffic police, at great risk to his life, somehow seized the horses and stopped the carriage. He suffered serious personal injuries in the process. The policemen seeks compensation from Gupta Confectioners.
Principle: A citizen is expected to take reasonable duty of care while driving on the road and not to cause injuries to any person.
Facts: X, the owner of a car, asked his friend Y to drive the car to his office. As the car was near his (X’s) office, it hit a pedestrian P on account of Y’s negligent driving and injured him seriously. P sued X for damages. Which one of the following is correct?
Principle: Contributory negligence in an accident is a defence for a charge in criminal law.
Facts: X, the deceased was negligently crossing the busy road at Connaught Place in Delhi while Y’s car hit him resulting in the death of X. What is the liability of Y?
Principal : Negligence is a breach of duty or a failure of one party to exercise the standard of care required by law, resulting in damage to the party to whom the duty was owed. A plaintiff can take civil action against the respondent, if the respondent’s negligence causes the plaintiff injury or loss of property.
Facts : ‘D’ went to a café and ordered and paid for a tin/can of soft drink. The tin was opaque and thereof, the contents could not be seen from outside. She (‘D’) consumed some of the contents and then lifted the tin to pour the remainder of the content into a tumbler. The remains of a snail in decomposed state dropped out of the tin into the tumbler. ‘D’ later complained of a stomach pain and her as having gastroenteritis and being in a state of sever shock. She used the manufacturer of the drink for negligence.
Applying the afore-stated principle, which of the following derivations is correct as regards liability of the manufacturer in the given situation?
Principle : Whoever, unlawfully or negligently does any act which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to he, likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be guilty of a negligent act likely to spread infection into disease dangerous to life.
Facts : ‘K’, a person, knowing that he is suffering from Cholera, travels by a train without information the railway officers of his condition.
Legal Principle: A careless person becomes liable for his negligence when he owed a duty of care to others
Facts: As the bus was leaving the platform, Basappa rushed and boarded the bus keeping the door open. Beerappa who was standing at the edge of the platform, was hit by the door of the moving bus and injured. Beerappa takes Basappa to court demanding monetary compensation.
PRINCIPLE: “Nobody shall unlawfully interfere with a person’s use or enjoyment of land, or some right over, or in connection with it. The use or enjoyment, envisaged herein, should be normal and reasonable taking into account surrounding situation.”
FACTS: Jeevan and Pavan were neighbours in residential locality. Pavan started a typing class in a part of his house and his typing sound disturbed Jeevan, who could not put up with and kind of continuous noise. He filed a suit against Pavan.
PRINCIPLE: Any direct physical interference with the goods in somebody’s possession without lawful justification is called trespass to goods.
FACTS: A purchased a car from a person who had no little to it and had sent it to a garage for repair. X, believing, wrongly, that the car was his, removed it from the garage.
PRINCIPLE: Vicarious liability is the liability of the Master or Principal for the tort committed by his servant or agent, provided the tort is committed in the course of employment. The Master or Principal is not liable for private wrongs of the servant /agent.
FACTS: X hands over some cash money at his house to Y, who is X’s neighbour and is also cashier in a bank, to be deposited in A’s account in the bank. Instead of depositing the money, Y misappropriates it.Which of the following statements depict correct legal position in this given legal situation?
PRINCIPLE: A person has no legal remedy for an injury caused by an act to which he has consented.
FACTS: R, a cricket enthusiast, purchases a ticket to watch a T20 match organized by the Indian Premier League (IPL). During the match, a ball struck for six hits R on his body and injures him. He sues IPL for compensation for the medical expenses. Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?
PRINCIPLE: Damage without the violation of a legal right is not actionable in a court of law. If the interference with the rights of another person is not unlawful or unauthorized, but a necessary consequence of the exercise of defendant’s own lawful rights, no action should lie.
FACTS: There was an established school (ES) in a particular locality. Subsequently, a new school (NS) was set up in the same locality which charged lower fees, on account of which people started patronizing the new school. Because of the competition, ES had to reduce its fees. ES filed a case against NS saying that NS had caused it financial loss and, thus, claimed compensation. Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?
PRINCIPLE: Whenever there is an invasion of a legal right, the person in whom the right is vested, is entitled to bring an action though he has suffered no actual loss or harm, and may recover damages (compensation).
FACTS: ‘A’ was a qualified voter for the Lok Sabha election. However, a returning officer wrongfully refused to take A’s vote. In spite of such wrongful refusal, the candidate, for whom ‘A’ wanted to vote, won the election. But, ‘A’ brought an action for damages.
Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?
PRINCIPLE: In a civil action for defamation, truth of the defamatory matter is an absolute defence. However, the burden of proving truth is on the defendant; and he is liable if he does not successfully discharge this burden.
FACTS: D, who was the editor of a local weekly, published a series of articles mentioning that P, who was a government servant, issued false certificates, accepted bribe, adopted corrupt and illegal means to mint money and was a “mischief monger”. P brought a civil action against D, who could not prove the facts published by him. Under the circumstances, which of the following derivations is CORRECT?
PRINCIPLE: A gift comprising existing property is valid and a gift comprising future property is void
FACTS: X has a house which is owned by him. He contracted to purchase a plot of land adjacent to the said house but the sale (of the plot of land) in his favour is yet to be completed. He makes a gift of both the properties (house and land) to Y. Under the afore-mentioned circumstances, which of the following derivations is CORRECT?
PRINCIPLE: Caveat emptor, “let the buyer beware”, stands for the practical skill and judgment of the buyer in his choice of goods for purchase. It is the business of the buyer to judge for himself that what he buys has its use and worth for him. Once bought and if the buy is not up to his expectations then he alone is to blame and no one else.
FACTS: For the purpose of making uniform for the employees, “A” bought dark blue colored cloth from B but did not disclose to the seller the specific purpose of the said purchase. When uniforms were prepared and used by the employees the cloth was found unfit. However, the cloth was fit for a variety of other purposes (such as, making caps. boots and carriage lining. etc). Applying the afore-stated principle which of the following derivations is CORRECT as regards remedy available to A in the given situation?
PRINCIPLE: The transferor of goods cannot pass a better title than what he himself possesses.
FACTS: X sells a stolen bike to Y. Y buys it in good faith.As regards the title to bike which of the following derivations is CORRECT?
PRINCIPLE: Negligence is a breach of duty or a failure of one party to exercise the standard of care required by law, resulting in damage to the party to whom the duty was owed. A plaintiff can take civil action against the respondent, if the respondent’s negligence causes the plaintiff injury or loss of property.
FACTS: D went to a café and ordered and paid for a tin/can of soft drink. The tin was opaque, and, therefore, the contents could not be seen from outside. She consumed some of the contents and then lifted the tin to pour the remainder of the content into a tumbler. The remains of a snail in decomposed state dropped out of the tin into the tumbler. D later complained of a stomach pain and her doctor diagnosed her as having gastroenteritis and being in a state of severe shock. She sued the manufacturer of the drink for negligence.
Applying the afore-stated principle which of the following derivations is CORRECT as regards liability of the manufacturer in the given situation?
PRINCIPLE: Master is liable for the wrongful acts committed by his servant; provided the acts are committed during the course of employment. However, the master is not liable if the wrongful act committed by his servant has no connection whatsoever with the servants contract of employment.
FACTS: D is a driver employed by M, who is the owner of a company. During the lunch time, D goes to a close by tea shop to have a cup of tea. There he picks up fight with the tea shop owner (T), which resulted in some damage to his shop. T wants to sue M for claiming compensation for the damage caused by the fight. Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?
PRINCIPLE: Trespass to land means direct interference with the possession of land without lawful justification. Trespass could be committed either by a person himself entering the land of another person or doing the same through some tangible object(s).
FACTS: A throws some stones upon his neighbor’s (B’s) premises.
Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?
PRINCIPLE: Nuisance is an unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land or some right over or in connection with it. If the interference is direct, the wrong is trespass; whereas, if the interference is consequential, it amounts to nuisance.
FACTS: A plants a tree on his land. However, he allows its branches to project over the land of B.Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?
PRINCIPLE: Interference with another’s goods in such a way as to deny the latter’s title to the goods amounts to conversion, and thus it is a civil wrong. It is an act intentionally done inconsistent with the owner’s right, though the doer may not know of, or intends to challenge the property or possession of the true owner.
FACTS: R went to a cycle-stand to park his bicycle. Seeing the stand fully occupied, he removed a few bicycles in order to rearrange a portion of the stand and make some space for his bicycle. He parked his bicycle properly, and put back all the bicycles except the one belonging to S. In fact, R was in a hurry, and therefore, he could not put back S’s bicycle. Somebody came on the way and took away S’s bicycle. The watchman of the stand did not take care of it assuming that the bicycle was not parked inside the stand. S filed a suit against R for conversion.
Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?
PRINCIPLE: Whosoever by his act or omission causes environmental pollution shall be held liable for any loss caused by such pollution. It shall be no defence in such cases that all due diligence or reasonable care was taken while carrying out the act or omission in question.
FACTS: Hari is carrying on a chemical and fertilizer industry near a bank of a river. In order to prevent and control any kind of harm to the environment, suitable waste treatment and disposal plants were installed in the factory. Due to some sudden mechanical/ technical problem, these plants ceased to work properly and therefore, caused environmental pollution, which ultimately caused substantial harm to the environment and to the people living around the factory. Victims of such pollution file a suit for suitable remedy.
PRINCIPLE: Qui facit per alium facit per se, i.e., he who does things through others does it himself.
FACTS: Nisha, the owner of a car, asked her friend Saurabh to take her car and drive the same to her office. As the car was near her office, it hit a pedestrian Srikant on account of Saurabh’s negligent driving and injured him seriously. Now, Srikant files a suit for damages against Nisha.
PRINCIPLE: Res ipsa loquitur, i.e., the thing speaks for itself.
FACTS: Seema got herself operated for the removal of her uterus in the defendant’s hospital, as there was diagnosed to be a cyst in one of her ovaries. Due the negligence of the surgeon, who performed the operation, abdominal pack was left in her abdomen. The same was removed by a second surgery.
PRINCIPLE: When an act, which would otherwise be an offence, is not that offence by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, every person has the same right of private defence against that act, which he would have if the act were that offence. Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.
FACTS: A, under the influence of madness, attempts to kill B. B in order to save his life cause grievous hurt to A.
PRINCIPLE: Whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said to defame that person.
FACTS: In a community there is a custom of stealing shoes of bridegroom during the marriage ceremony. The shoes of the bridegroom were stolen by Y, A announced that Z has stolen the shoes. Everyone present in the marriage party started staring at Z with great surprise. Z felt very ashamed.
Ms. Usha wants to file a suit against Bhagyalaxmi Theatre praying for a permanent injunction (stay order) restraining the theatre from running the film named “Jai Santoshi Maa”. Her contention is that the film hurt her religious feelings and sentiments as Goddess Saraswati, Laxmi and Parvati were depicted as jealous and were ridiculed.
PRINCIPLES: 1. Consumable goods which are not fit for consumption are not marketable.
2. A consumer shall not suffer on account of unmarketable goods.
3. A seller is liable for knowingly selling unmarketable goods.
4. A manufacturer shall be liable for the quality of his products.
FACTS: Ram bought a Coca Cola bottle from Shama’s shop. Back at home, the server opened the bottle and poured the drink into the glasses of Ram and his friend Tom. As Tom started drinking, he felt irritation in his throat. Immediately, Ram and Tom took the sample to test and found nitric acid in the content. Ram filed a suit against Shama, Coca Cola company and the bottler, Kishan and Co.
a. Ram cannot get compensation
b. Tom can get compensation
c. Both Ram and Tom can get compensation
i. Shama did not know the contents of sealed bottle.
ii. Ram did not actually suffer though he bought the bottle.
iii. Tom did not buy the bottle.
iv. Coca Cola company is responsible since it supplied the concentrate.
v. Kishen & Co, is responsible since it added water, sugar, etc., and sealed the bottle.
vi. Shama is responsible for selling the defective product.
Your decision with the reason:
The correct option is D.
A manufacturer shall be liable for the quality of his products. In this case coca cola is the manufacturer so they should be liable.
PRINCIPLES: 1. If A is asked to do something by B, B is responsible for the act, not A.
2. If A, while acting for B commits a wrong, A is responsible for the wrong, not B.
3. If A is authorised to do something for B, but in the name of A without disclosing B’s presence, both A and B may be held liable.
FACTS: Somu contracted with Amar whereunder Amar would buy a pumpset to be used in Somu’s farm. Such a pumpset was in short supply in the market. Gulab, a dealer, had such a pumpset and he refused to sell it to Amar. Amar threatened Gulab of serious consequences if he fails to part with the pumpset. Gulab filed a complaint against Amar.
a. Amar alone is liable for the wrong though he acted for Somu.
b. Amar is not liable for the wrong, though he is bound by the contract with Somu.
c. Somu is bound by the contract and liable for the wrong.
d. Both Somu and Amar are liable for the wrong.
i. Amar committed the wrong while acting for the benefit of Somu.
ii. Amar cannot do while acting for Somu something which he cannot do while acting for himself.
iii. Both Amar and Somu are liable since they are bound by the contract.
iv. Somu has to be responsible for the act of Amar committed for Somu’s benefit.
Your decision with the reason:
The correct answer is B although Amar was doing the work given by Sonu under contract but as soon as he threatened Gulab he committed a wrong and here Somu cannot be held liable because Amar did all that by himself..as him...not under Somu. Hence Amar alone would be liable for his wrongdoing.
PRINCIPLES: 1. An employer shall be liable for the wrongs committed by his employees in the course of employment.
2. Third parties must exercise reasonable care to find out whether a person is actually acting in the course of employment.
FACTS: Nandan was appointed by Syndicate Bank to collect small savings from its customers spread over in different places on daily basis. Nagamma, a housemaid, was one of such ‘customers making use of Nandan’s service.
Syndicate Bank after a couple of years terminated Nandan’s service. Nagamma, unaware of this fact, was handing over her savings to Nandan who misappropriated them. Nagamma realised this nearly after three months, when she went to the Bank to withdraw money. She filed a complaint against the Bank.
a. Syndicate Bank shall be liable to compensate Nagamma.
b. Syndicate Bank shall not be liable to compensate Nagamma.
c. Nagamma has to blame herself for her negligence.
i. Nandan was not acting in the course of employment after the termination of his service.
ii. A person cannot blame others for his own negligence.
iii. Nagamma was entitled to be informed by the Bank about Nandan.
iv. The Bank is entitled to expect its customers to know actual position.
Your decision with the reason:
PRINCIPLES: 1. A master shall be liable for the fraudulent acts of his servants committed in the course of employment.
2. Whether an act is committed in the course of employment has to be judged in the context of the case.
3. Both master and third parties must exercise reasonable care in this regard.
FACTS: Rama Bhai was an uneducated widow and she opened an S.B. account with Syndicate Bank with the help of her nephew by name Keshav who was at that time working as a clerk in the Bank. Keshav used to deposit the money of Rama Bhai from time to time and get the entries done in the passbook. After a year or so, Keshav was dismissed from the service by the Bank. Being unaware of this fact, Rama Bhai continued to hand over her savings to him and Keshav misappropriated them. Rama Bhai realised this only when Keshav disappeared from the scene one day, and she sought compensation from the Bank.
a. Syndicate Bank shall be liable to compensate Rama Bhai.
b. Syndicate Bank shall not be liable to compensate Rama Bhai.
c. Rama Bhai cannot blame others for her negligence.
i. Keshav was not an employee of the Bank when the fraud was committed.
ii. The Bank was not aware of the special arrangement between Rama Bhai and Keshav
iii. It is the Bank’s duty to take care of vulnerable customers.
iv. Rama Bhai should have checked about Keshav in her own interest.
Your decision with the reason: