Test: Law Of Tort - 1


35 Questions MCQ Test Legal Reasoning for CLAT | Test: Law Of Tort - 1


Description
This mock test of Test: Law Of Tort - 1 for CLAT helps you for every CLAT entrance exam. This contains 35 Multiple Choice Questions for CLAT Test: Law Of Tort - 1 (mcq) to study with solutions a complete question bank. The solved questions answers in this Test: Law Of Tort - 1 quiz give you a good mix of easy questions and tough questions. CLAT students definitely take this Test: Law Of Tort - 1 exercise for a better result in the exam. You can find other Test: Law Of Tort - 1 extra questions, long questions & short questions for CLAT on EduRev as well by searching above.
QUESTION: 1

PRINCIPLE: Everybody is under a legal obligation to take reasonable care to avoid an act or omission which he can take reasonable care to avoid and act or omission which he can foresee would injure his neighbour. The neighbour, for this purpose, is any person whom he should have in his mind as likely to be affected by his actions.

FACTS: Krishnan, while driving a car at high speed in a crowded road, knocked down a cyclist. The cyclist died on the spot with a lot of blood spilling around, Lakshmi, a pregnant woman passing by, suffered from a nervous shock, leading to abortion. Lakshmi filed a suit against Krishnan claiming damages.

Solution:

Remoteness of damage is inversely proportional to the amount of compensation and here Krishna is unable to see this consequences that is why laxmi is not entitled to compensation.

QUESTION: 2

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 a 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 any kind of continuous noise. He filed a suit against Pavan.

Solution:
  • Private Nuisance can be defined as "any continuous activity or state of affairs causing a substantial and unreasonable interference with a (claimant's) land or his use or enjoyment of that land".
  • Private nuisance, unlike public nuisance, is only a tort, and damages for personal injuries are not recoverable. 
QUESTION: 3

Jill ran five miles yesterday, and right before she was done she fell and cut her arm so badly it required stitches. Today, Carl bumped into Jill in the office because he was carelessly not watching where he was going as he was spinning around and around in a hallway.  The impact caused Jill’s stitches to bleed. Jill then sued Carl for negligence, trying to recover the cost of her doctor’s bill.  Jill’s negligence will not hold in court because:

Solution:
  • The actions of the person (or entity) who owes you a duty must be sufficiently related to your injuries such that the law considers the person to have caused your injuries in a legal sense. If someone’s actions are a remote cause of your injury, they are not a proximate cause.
  • However, if your injury would not have occurred “but for” the actions of another, then usually you can conclude there was proximate causation. Usually, this is an easy question.
  • But proximate cause can also be the most difficult issue in a personal injury case. Not every remote cause of an injury will result in a right to recover damage.
  • Sometimes, the actions of the person who got hurt can be the cause of their own injuries.
QUESTION: 4

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.

Solution:

It is clear from the principle,

  • Any direct physical interference with the goods in somebody’s possession without lawful justification is called trespass to goods.

X, believing, wrongly, that the car was his, removed it from the garage. Wrong belief is not a remedy available in torts.

QUESTION: 5

The Railway authorities allowed a train to be over-crowded. In consequence, a legitimate passenger, Mr. X got his pocket picked. Choose appropriate answer-

Solution:

A cause of action is a set of facts that are used to justify claims or right to sue to obtain property or money or enforcement of a right against another party and since there is no infringement of legal rights of X, there is no cause of action arising against the Railway authority and hence he cannot sue them.

QUESTION: 6

PRINCIPLE: A master is liable for the acts committed by his servant in the course of employment.

FACT: Sanjay is a driver working in Brookebond and 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 Ruhina 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 and soon thereafter; the car somersaulted due to negligence of Sanjay. Ruhina was thrown out of the car and suffered multiple injuries. She seeks compensation from Brookebond and Co.

Solution:
  • Vicarious liability can be defined as a legal doctrine that assigns liability for an injury to a person who did not cause the injury who has a particular relationship to the person who did act negligently. It can also be called imputed negligence.
  • This doctrine arises under the common law doctrine of agency, respondeat superior, the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate or, in a broader sense, the responsibility of any third party that had the "right, ability or duty to control" the activities of a violator. 
  • Hence, in the above situation, since the act was not committed in the course of employment, Ruhina will not succeed.
QUESTION: 7

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.

Q. As regards the title to the bike which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

Solution:

Y will not get the title of that product because transfer, as well as ownership, is unlawful, it doesn't matter intention lies or not. 

hence x will be totally guilty for forgery and misrepresentation..

QUESTION: 8

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.

Q. Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

Solution:

As the principal says that A person has no legal remedy for an injury caused by an act to which he has consented. So he voluntarily put himself at risk

QUESTION: 9

In an action for trespass, burden to prove justification is on the…………………….

Solution:

In negligent commission of trespass to person, plaintiff need to proof that injuries so complaint of are reasonably foreseeable. In case of direct trespass or intentional trespass proof of actual damage is not necessary but in negligent torts, proof of damage becomes essential.

QUESTION: 10

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 the 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 a financial loss and, thus, claimed compensation.

Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

Solution:

The opening of a new school with lower fees does not violate ES's legal right, there is no legal injury, So no compensation is to be given.

QUESTION: 11

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.

Q. Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

Solution:
  • Damages need to be paid when legal right has been violated even without any actual damage.Such damages are called nominal damages.
  • In the above situation since A's legal right has been violated (even without any actual damage)compensation should be granted.
QUESTION: 12

PRINCIPLE: In a civil action for defamation, the truth of the defamatory matter is an absolute defense. However, the burden of proving the 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.

Q. Under the circumstances, which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

Solution:
  • Defamation, as a tort, is only wrong if the defamation is of nature which harms the reputation of a person who is alive.
  • The term "defamation" is an all-encompassing term that covers any statement that hurts someone's reputation.
  • One of the essential elements for someone to successfully sue another for defamation is the requirement that the statement be false.
  • If the statement is true, there is no liability and there can be no recovery. According to common law, the burden of proof relative to the truth or falsity of a statement is on the defendant.

In the above case, D would be liable as he could not prove the facts published by him.

QUESTION: 13

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.

Q. Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

Solution:

According to the principle:

  • Trespass could be by entering the land himself or doing the same by tangible objects.
  • Tangible objects are objects which can be touched and throwing stuff like a stone is a tangible object.

Hence A has committed a trespass

QUESTION: 14

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.

Q. Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

Solution:

According to the principle given here it is clear that R had made interference with S’s property.

  • 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.
QUESTION: 15

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.

Solution:
  • The Polluter Pays principle that was introduced by the OECD in 1972 states that the person liable for damages caused to the environment is liable to compensate for the damage caused and return the environment to its original state irrespective of the intent.
  • This principle has been applied in a number of cases in India to establish absolute liability of the polluter. In the case of Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v Union of India, the Court held that once the industrial activity carried out is inherently dangerous, the person carrying out such activity is liable to make good the loss caused to any person by his activity, irrespective of the fact that he took reasonable care while carrying out his activity.The 
  • Chemical and fertilizer industry deals with inherently dangerous substances, so absolute liability is established.
QUESTION: 16

PRINCIPLE: Violation of a legal right, with or without actual damage, gives rise to a tort.

FACTS: Ravi and Lakshman are not the best of friends. They have strained relations and they constantly compete against one another for better business prospects. Ravi sets up a grocery store where he sells food grains for Rs. 20 per kilogram, a rate that is substantially lower than other stores in the same area. The store is a huge success, and Ravi gains huge profits, as everybody prefers to buy the grains from his store. Soon after, Lakshman sets up another store next to Ravi‘s and puts up a board that says, Rice – Rs.15 per kilo & Wheat – Rs. 12 per kilo‘. Attracted by the new offer, all of Ravi‘s customers now prefer to buy grains from Lakshman‘s store. Ravi, hence, incurs heavy losses and is forced to close down his store. He believes that Lakshman has set up the shop in order to make his business fail, and decides to sue Lakshman for damages.

Q. Will Ravi succeed?

Solution:

The above case is based on the legal doctrine of Injuria sine damnum which means injury of legal rights without damage. It basically states that infringement of an absolute private right without any actual loss or damage. Here, physical damages or actual loss means loss or damage in terms of health, money, etc. 

QUESTION: 17

PRINCIPLE: Tortuous liability may arise even though there is no contract between two parties if one of them has been unjustly enriched at the cost of the other.

FACTS: Rohit hears a knock at the door, and sees that someone has come to deliver a bag of grocery supplies. Rohit had not ordered for them, but he silently accepts the supplies without disclosing that he had not ordered them. His neighbor, David, who had actually ordered the supplies and paid for them, is perplexed that they have not been delivered yet.

Solution:

Tortious Liability = Duty of Care + Breach of Duty + Damage (Causation & Remoteness) Duty of Care is owed to claimant by the defendant.

The general rule of tort liability is that the person who causes damage must pay compensation. In certain cases, however, liability can arise on third parties also. The law refers to this vicarious liability.

QUESTION: 18

PRINCIPLE: Violation of a legal right, with or without actual damage, gives rise to a tort. However, actual damage without violation of a legal right does not give rise to tortious liability.

FACTS: Arpita was travelling to Ladakh for a business visit, while she was stopped by some police officers at a check post on the highway. They detained her on the pretext of her possessing illegal substances on her person, and restricted her from contacting anybody who might help her in the predicament. As a result of being detained, she was unable to fulfil the purpose of her visit, and the business deal was lost, causing losses to her company. When she was finally released, she wished to sue the police authorities for infringement on her fundamental rights to movement, speech and expression.

Q. Will she succeed in these claims?

Solution:

The above case is based on the legal doctrine of Injuria sine damnum which means injury of legal rights without damage. It basically states that infringement of an absolute private right without any actual loss or damage. Here, physical damages or actual loss means loss or damage in terms of health, money, etc. 

QUESTION: 19

Principle - Violation of a legal right, with or without actual damage, gives rise to a tort. However, actual damage without violation of a legal right does not give rise to tortuous liability.

Facts – Mr. Akhil lives in a locality that lies just off the main road, which supports heavy traffic and is one of the most important roads in his city. The street on which his house is located is, however, quiet and peaceful, and Akhil is pleased to live there. One day, some road repair works are undertaken on the main road, and as a result, the municipal authorities decide to divert the traffic through the street on which Akhil resides. Akhil is greatly disturbed and annoyed by the constant sound of the vehicles, honking, and traffic jams along the narrow street. He wishes to sue the municipal authorities for the nuisance caused by this diversion of traffic.

Q. Will he succeed?

Solution:

Violation of a legal right, with or without actual damage, gives rise to a tort. However, actual damage without violation of a legal right does not give rise to tortuous liability.

Akhil has no legal right to enjoy a peaceful street, so there has been no violation of a legal right, despite actual damage. So, he cannot succeed in a tortious claim.

QUESTION: 20

Principle - Violation of a legal right, with or without actual damage, gives rise to a tort. However, actual damage without violation of a legal right does not give rise to tortious liability.

​Facts – Ayush has a shop that offers printing, Xerox, and book binding services. In the shop, he also sells notebooks, stationery, printing inks, paper and other such items. He has a big board outside his shop displaying all the things he deals in, and this board is instrumental in attracting customers, who would otherwise be unaware that he sold such things. His shop is situated in a narrow street with several other stores. Rajesh owns a book store next to him, and he installs a display shelf with all the titles he sells, outside his shop in order to woo customers. This shelf obscures the view to Ayush‘s board, and there is a decrease in the number of customers who buy from him. Ayush decides to sue Rajesh and claim damages.

Solution:

Violation of a legal right, with or without actual damage, gives rise to a tort. However, actual damage without violation of a legal right does not give rise to tortious liability.

Ayush cannot claim damages in this case, as his legal rights have not been violated by Rajesh in setting up a display shelf.

QUESTION: 21

Complete the sentence:To constitute trespass actual damage is………………………..

Solution:

To constitute trespass actual damage is not necessary

Intention:
An act does not constitute trespass to person unless it is done with intention. Thus intention is the chief criteria for trespass to person.

If there is an intention behind committing a trespass then it is actionable per se and the plaintiff need not proof any specific or particular damage.

In negligent commission of trespass to person, plaintiff need to proof that injuries so complaint of are reasonably foreseeable. In case of direct trespass or intentional trespass proof of actual damage is not necessary but in negligent torts, proof of damage becomes essential.

QUESTION: 22

Principle – Ubi jus ibi remedium. Where there is a legal right, there is a legal remedy.

Facts – Deepti stays at a hotel in Indonesia for three months. After about a month, she gets fed up of the food served at the hotel, so she goes out to buy some ingredients, vegetables, etc. and asks the hotel chef to prepare a vegetarian meal and serve it in her room. The chef does so, but when the meal is served, she is asked to pay for the meal. Deepti, who had already spent a lot on the ingredients, refuses to pay for the simple vegetarian meal. The next day, at the breakfast table, the chef refuses to serve her any food. Deepti decides to sue the chef and claim damages.

Solution:

The correct option is A.

As the principle states ‘Where there is a legal right, there is a legal remedy.’

QUESTION: 23

‘X’ with a view to murdering ‘Y’ enters ‘Y’ bedroom at night when ‘Y’ is out of station. What is ‘X’ guilty of?

Solution:

Well as Y was away so murder or anything of that sort is impossible to happen, and as X went in with a view to murder Y he has committed trespass. 

QUESTION: 24

Principle – Whoever stores a substance which would cause damage on escape shall be strictly liable (i.e., liable even when he has exercised necessary care) for any damage caused by the escape of that substance.

Facts – Cobalamine Co. is a manufacturer of hydrogen peroxide which has several industrial uses, but is also dangerous. The Company has one of its factories set up in Dimapur, a small district. While transporting the hydrogen peroxide from that factory to another place in huge containers, the engine of the truck carrying the chemical got overheated, and this triggered an explosion of the concentrated hydrogen peroxide. The truck driver, and several other people on the road were grievously injured. The reaction was shortly contained by an expert team, and investigations revealed that reasonable precautions had been taken to prevent such a mishap.

Q. Will Cobalamine be liable to pay damages to those injured?

Solution:

Whoever stores a substance which would cause damage on escape shall be strictly liable (i.e., liable even when he has exercised necessary care) for any damage caused by the escape of that substance.

Cobalamine would be liable as hydrogen peroxide is a dangerous substance and its escape fixes liability, despite the taking of reasonable precautions.

QUESTION: 25

A throws water on B and the drop of the water falls on B. A committed

Solution: Battery means any using any physical force or a physical contact without any lawful justification. Here that drop is a medium and the act does not have any lawful justification. This it amount to battery.
QUESTION: 26

X actually beats B with a stick. He has committed the offence of………………….

Solution: X beats B with a stick so, he commits the offence of battery because the intentional use of force against another person without lawful justification constitutes tort of battery . 
QUESTION: 27

Principle – The master is liable for the wrongful acts of the servant done in the course of employment.

Facts – Pradyuman is a mechanic working in the car mechanics shop owned by Abhjit. Pallavi wants her Audi A8 to be serviced and cleaned, as she is planning to go on a long drive soon. She drops off the car at the mechanic‘s, and asks Pradyuman to have it ready in two days. Pradyuman, while trying to drive the car to the jet-cleaning area, accidentally bumps it against the wall and a dent is created on the car door. When Pallavi comes to take her serviced car, she is livid at the condition in which it is returned to her, and wishes to sue for damages.

Solution:

The master is liable for the wrongful acts of the servant done in the course of employment.

Abhijit will be liable to pay damages, as Pradhyuman is his servant and the damage was caused in the course of employment.

QUESTION: 28

Principle – Volenti non fit injuria - No remedy can be claimed for harm caused through voluntary consent.

​Facts – On a hot, sunny day, Avtar Singh, a traffic policeman wishes to take a break from his work on the Jangpura-Jayanagar junction. He sees a grocery store nearby, and decides to buy some refreshments. To get to the grocery store, he must cross the busy road first. While doing so, he sees that a child has suddenly jumped down from the pavement on the other side, and is attempting to cross the road, despite vehicles hurtling past at a high speed. On seeing an approaching car that the child does not seem to be aware of, Avtar lunges forward and pushes the child out of the way. However, the driver of the car, Mr. Takwani, is unable to stop the car in time and hits Avtar, who sustains serious injuries, including a torn ligament. This means that Avtar will not be able to perform his duties as a traffic policeman for at least six months. He wishes to sue Takwani and claim damages for his loss in income, but Takwani asserts that there was a green light, and he had committed no fault in driving at a reasonable speed. It was Avtar who had suddenly lunged forward, giving him no time to apply the brakes! Decide.

Solution:

As simple as it is, Volenti Non Fit Injuria - No d... moreamages for harm caused by voluntary actions.Avtar jumped before the car by his own wish to save the child so he can't clam any damages whatsoever. There is no mention of Takwani being rash so option D and B are out.between option A and C, A is the better pick because it justifies the whole thing properly and unnecessarily noble is just not right in option C

QUESTION: 29

This Questions based on a common set of principles and facts. Answer accordingly.

Principle 1: Any person (Principal) authorizing another person (Agent) to do a certain act will be liable for all acts of such person done within the course of employment. The tests of control and direction must be complied with.

Principle 2: A wrongful act authorized by the Principal as well as a lawful act done in a wrongful manner would be considered to have been within the course of employment unless specific directions were given regarding the mode of performance of the act.

Principle 3: For an act to fall outside the scope of employment, the act should either have been performed after the authorized act had come to an end or must be of such nature that it can be completely divorced from the authorized act.

Principle 4: Such a relationship need not be a long term arrangement and can be set up for one specific transaction.

Facts: Aggubai instructed her long standing childhood friend Annubai to go to Palampur and strike a deal with Tagesh, a spirit supplier, for the purchase of 1000 bottles of McDowell‘s No.1 whisky, which Aggubai intended to sell at her retail store in Mumbai. Annubai was also instructed to keep in touch with Aggubai over phone regarding the deal. Accordingly, Annubai took a train to Palampur, planned a meeting with Tagesh and made the requisite purchase.

Q. Had Aggubai clearly instructed Annubai to travel only by train, who would then be liable for the accident?

Solution:

The principle says that  For an act to fall outside the scope of employment, the act should either have been performed after the authorized act had come to an end or must be of such nature that it can be completely divorced from the authorized act.

Annubai by deciding to drive she clearly operated outside the course of her employment.

QUESTION: 30

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.

Solution:

Nisha is liable as Saurabh was driving under her authority and for her purpose.The principle says he who does things through others does it himself.

QUESTION: 31

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.

Solution:

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.

B has not committed any offence as he was acting in sef defense

 

QUESTION: 32

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

Solution:

A is the correct option.Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A). If we take an example to prove the situation- if person A voluntarily invites person B in his house then person A can't sue B for trespass.

QUESTION: 33

PRINCIPLE: Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent moves that property, such taking is said to commit theft.

FACT: RAMU cuts down a tree on RINKU’S ground, with the intention of dishonestly taking the tree out of RINKU’S profession without RINKU’S consent. A could not take the tree away.

Solution:

Ramu will be prosecuted for theft, since he had theintention of taking away the tree after cutting it.
The principle clearly talks about the intention of taking away property.

QUESTION: 34

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.

Solution:

This problem is based on Premvati Vs State of Rajasthan AIR 1977 facts are not similar Lipton and company shall not be liable.

QUESTION: 35

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.

Solution:

Surgeon left an abdominal pack in her abdomen which is a fact and it speaks for itself and hence sufficient enough for the case.

Similar Content

Related tests