|1 Crore+ students have signed up on EduRev. Have you?|
A master is liable for the wrongs committed by his servants. It is called
In law of Torts, always unliquidated damages are awarded. The meaning of unliquidated is
The Law of Torts has largely developed through
______are words which appear innocent, but contain a latent meaning which is defamatory
Innuendoes is an indirect way of talking about somebody/something, usually suggesting something bad or rude.
In an action for negligence, the plaintiff has to prove:
If a newspaper published a defamatory article written by `X’, who can be sued?
If the statement is made in writing and published, the defamation is called "libel". If the statement , being hurtful, is spoken, the statement is "slander". In the above situation, the publisher of the newspaper published the defamatory article, hence he has committed libel.
______ is an act which is twisted, crooked, which is not straight and lawful
In criminal law intention is an essential constituent of offence. In Law of Torts
Defamation infringes a person’s right to
Whoever by words or writing conveys to others any imputation concerning any person's “reputation” is said to defame that person.
Assertion (A) None should make unnatural use of his land.
Reason (R) It may prove fatal for the public at large.
Assertion (A) When right of a private individual has been infringed by other individual, it is called tort.
Reason (R) When right of public at large has been infringed it is called crime.
Principle: If a professional doesn’t take care like an ordinary prudent person, he is guilty of negligence and shall have to pay compensation to those who suffer.
Fact: Kapoor, a businessman appointed a surgeon Dr. K.S. Pratap for completing surgery to remove deformation in the leg of his son, Amit. During the surgery an attendant nurse left a small needle inside, which resulted in a serious abyss requiring second operation. After the second operation, leg was shortened. Has the doctor committed any wrong?
The nurse works under the duty of the doctor So for the negligence of the nurse, Doctor will be HELD VICARIOUSLY liable.
Principle: No one is responsible for unforeseen circumstances, but liable for not taking due care.
Fact: Rahul, aged about 19 years, was playing cricket with his friends in housing societies lane where they live. While playing he made a good shot, which hit a window of a new Maruti car and broke the window. Has Rahul to pay for?
The correct option is B.
The owner of the car can sue rahul through his father for damages. The case will be registered in the name of Rahul but the ultimate compensation will be paid by Rahul's father.
Principle: Servant’s negligence is master’s responsibility.
Fact: In a shopping complex, Amir Ali has dry fruits shop in the basement. The shopping complex remained closed on Saturday. Abeera Co. manages the complex. The watchman forgot to close the wheel of reservoir on Friday night and the water overflowed. No one noticed that incident. The water damaged the fruits in the shop of Amir Ali. From whom, if any, Amir Ali may recover his loss?
Principle: Without lawful authority, if a person is restricted from moving in a direction in which he is entitled to move, it amounts to an offence of wrongful restraint.
Fact: In view of the religious procession scheduled to be taken through the streets of the city, police erected barricades on the main road to prevent the traffic movement. Consequently, “A” who had to reach the airport couldn’t reach in time.
D is the correct option.A cannot succeed, as the barricades were installed under lawful authority AS police have lawful authority to do this so no restraint.
Principle: A master is liable for the acts committed by his servant in the course of employment.
Fact: “A” instructs his driver “B” to drive his vehicle from the office back to home. He is also instructed not to carry any unauthorized person in the car. “B” one day while driving empty car back to home picks up his friend, “C”, who stays close to A’s house. In the course of driving the car towards A’s house, he collides with a vehicle.”C” is injured in the accident. Is A liable to compensate to C?
As while driving he was in the course of action it no matter whether master expressly prohibited his servant or not be have to check that only whether the person is in course of employment or not
Principle: The owner of a land is entitled to the column of air space above the surface ad infinitum. But, the right is restricted to such height as is necessary for the ordinary use and employment of his land, and the structure on it.
Fact: A had constructed a single-storeyed house on a corner site. He had no intention of building an additional floor. B his neighbour, who ran an internet parlour got a hoarding made, which protruded over A’s house at a height of around 6 feet above the terrace. A sues B for trespass.
Principle: It is settled principle that an occupier should not do a dangerous act without adequate warning if he knows or suspects that a trespasser is present.
Fact: Factual Situation: ‘A’ was cutting a large tree on his land. Some boys were fooling about nearby. ‘A’ paid no attention as the boys were clearly trespassers, when the tree fell, one of the boys was hit by a falling branch and suffered injury.
Principle: Damages can be recovered for nervous shock.
Facts: Avinash on April 1st as a joke falsely told Balu that his father met with an accident and was injured seriously. By reason of this misrepresentation, Balu suffered a violent shock and his hair turned grey and his life was for some time in great danger. Later, Balu intends to file suit against Avinsah. Advise
Principle: The employer is liable to pay compensation for the injuries suffered by his workers, if the accident has arisen out of and in the course of employment. The liability is absolute and the employer will not have any defences if the accident results in death or total disablement.
Facts: Mr. Tharun is working as an unskilled worker in the furniture fabricating industry run by Mr. Omar in Bangalore. While Mr. Tharun and his co-workers were working on the preparation of a double decker iron cot, the thick iron sheet fell on the head of Mr. Tharun. He suffered serious head injuries. He was hospitalized and he died in the hospital. In the Government Hospital, where Mr. Tharun was admitted, the doctors delayed attending Mr. Tharun. It was also found out in the course of treatment that Mr. Tharun was drunk at the time when the accident occurred.
Here it does't matters that Tharun was drunk or doctor delayed in attending him but the pointis that it all occurs during course of employment so the master is liable. Stick to the principle. Correct answer is C .
PRINCIPLE: A tort-feasor (wrong-doer) is liable if intended consequences of his act are evidently foreseeable.
FACTS: Marcus threw an ignited missile into a crowded market place. The fiery missile came down the shed of a vendor of ginger bread who in order to protect himself, caught it dexterously and threw it away from him. It then fell on the shed of another merchant, who in order to protect himself passed it on precisely in the same way, till at last it burst in Brutus’s face and put his eye out. Brutus sued Marcus. Decide.
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.
Straightway applying the principle, A has harmed the reputation of Z as there many people in the marriage and many of them might not be aware of the custom and umpute that Z is a thief.
PRINCIPLE: An employer is liable for the negligence of his employee. But an employer is not liable for the negligence of his employee, if the victim of such negligence is one of his other employees.
FACTS: A and B were working in factory as unskilled labourers. A was carrying a basket of stones on his head. B was sitting on the ground. When A crossed B, all of a sudden a stone fell down from the basket and hit B on his head. B died immediately.
PRINCIPLE: Damages are the money recompense, as far as money can do, for the violation of a right.
FACTS: A, an Indian citizen, having a right to vote, was not allowed to cast his vote on the polling booth, by the returning officer. Name of A was mentioned in the voter’s list. A has also reported at the polling booth in time. However, the candidate in whose favour A would have cast his vote won the election. A filed a suit claiming damages.
PRINCIPLE: When a person voluntarily agrees to suffer some harm, he is not allowed to complain for that.
FACTS: A was one of the spectators at a formula one car race, being held at Gurgaon, on a track owned by One M Company. During the race, there was a collision between two racing cars, one of which was thrown away amidst spectators, thereby causing an injury to A. A claims damage for the injuries caused to him.
PRINCIPLE: An interest which is created on a transfer of property and depends upon the fulfillment of a condition will fail if the fulfillment of the condition is impossible or is forbidden by law or is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law or is fraudulent or involves or implies injury to the person or property of another or the court regards it as immoral or opposed to public policy.
FACTS: A gives Rs. 10 Lakh to B on condition that B shall marry A’s daughter C. On the date on which A gave Rs. 10 Lakh to B, C was dead.
The correct option is A.
This is correctly presented before us in case in which the precondition of contract becomes an impossibility. According to section 36 of indian contract act 1872 and guiding principle, the agreements dependent upon impossible events are void. As in this case B cannot marry C who is already dead and his marriage with C was the prevention to his receiving Rs 10 lakh from A. So the agreement between B and A is void.
PRINCIPLE: Nothing is an offence merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm, if it be done without any criminal intention to cause harm and in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to a person or property.
FACTS: Mr. Sharman, the Italian captain of a steam vessel, suddenly and without any fault or negligence on his part, finds himself near the Kochi coast in such a position that before he can stop his vessel, he must inevitably run down a boat B with twenty or thirty passengers on board, unless he changes the course of his vessel, and that by changing his course, he must incur risk of running down a boat C with only two passengers on board, which he may possibly clear. Whether Sharman has committed an offence?
PRINCIPLE: Ignorance of Fact is excused but ignorance of law is no excuse
FACTS: X was a passenger from Zurich to Manila in a Swiss Plane. When the plane landed at the Airport of Bombay on 28 Nov. 1962 it was found on searching that X carried 34 kg of Gold Bars on his person and that he had not declared it in the ‘Manifest for Transit’. On 26th Nov. 1962 the Government of India had issued a notification modifying its earlier exemption, making it mandatory now that the gold must be declared in the “Manifest” of the aircraft.
Ignorance of law is not excusable. X didn't declare gold in the manifest.even two days after declaration, X had gold bars with him & no information received by the aircraft authority. And ignored the law.
Ramu applied for the post of Director in an organization. The governing body of the organization passed a resolution appointing him to the post. After the meeting, one of the members of the governing body informed him privately of the resolution. Subsequently, the resolution was rescinded. Ramu claims damages. Which one of the following is the correct legal proposition in the case?
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.
This case belongs to nuisance, the leading case of Usha ben V bhagyalakshmi chitra mandir.
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 C.
By applying principle 4, it is clear that the manufacturer is responsible for the quality of the products.the deller being unaware of the quality of the sealed bottle will not 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 option is B.
Amar is sole responsibility and it was on his discretion to avoid such a threat to gulab.
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:
PRINCIPLES: 1. A person is liable for negligence, if he fails to take care of his neighbor’s interest.
2. A neighbour is anyone whose interests should have been foreseeable by a reasonable man while carrying on his activities.
FACTS: A cricket match was going on in a closed door stadium. A cricket fan who could not get into the stadium was watching the game by climbing up a nearby tree and sitting there. The cricket ball in the course of the game went out of the stadium and hit this person and injured him. He filed a suit against the organizers.
(a) The organizers are liable to compensate the injured person.
(b) The organizers are not liable to compensate the injured person.
(c) The injured person should have avoided the place where he might be hit by the cricket ball.
(i) The organizers are responsible for the people inside the stadium.
(ii) The organizers could not have foreseen somebody watching the game by climbing up a tree.
(iii) A person crazy about something must pay the price for that.
(iv) The organizers shall be liable to everybody likely to watch the game.
Your decision with the reason:
PRINCIPLES: 1. When a person unlawfully interferes in the chattel of another person by which the latter is deprived of its use, the former commits the tort of conversion.
2. Nobody shall enrich himself at other’s expense.
FACTS: A patient suffering from stomach ailment approached a teaching hospital. He was diagnosed as suffering from appendicitis and his appendix was removed. He became alright. The hospital however found some unique cells in the appendix, and using the cell lines thereof, it developed drugs of enormous commercial value. When the erstwhile patient came to know about it, he claimed a share in the profit made by the hospital.
(a) The hospital need not share its profits with the patient.
(b) The hospital may share its profits on ex gratis basis.
(c) The hospital shall share its profits with the patient.
(i) The patient, far from being deprived of the use of his appendix, actually benefitted by its removal.
(ii) The hospital instead of throwing away the appendix conducted further research on it on its own and the development of drug was the result of its own effort.
(iii) The hospital could not have achieved its success without that appendix belonging to the patient.
(iv) Everybody must care for and share with others.
Your decision with the reason:
B throws water on C with the intention of getting him wet. The action is
The term ‘Scienter’ is related to which one of the following sign boards
The Railway authorities allowed a train to be over-crowded. In consequence, a legitimate passenger, Mr. X got his pocket picked. Choose appropriate answer-
PRINCIPLE: A master is liable for the acts committed by his servant in the course of employment.
FACTS: Sanjay is a driver working in Brooke bond 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 the negligence to Sanjay. Ruhina was thrown out of the car suffered multiple injuries. She seeks compensation from Brooke bond and Co.
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 as 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.
PRINCIPLE: Nuisance as a tort (Civil wrong) means an unlawful interference with a person’s use of enjoyment of land, or some right over, or in connection with it.
FACTS: During the scarcity of onions, long queues were made outside the defendant’s shop, who, having a license to sell fruits and vegetables, used to sell only 1 kg of onion per ration card. The queues extended on the highway and also caused some obstruction to the neighboring shops. The neighboring shopkeepers brought and action for nuisance against the defendant
The correct option is A
Nuisance is an unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over, or in connection with it. Nuisance is an injury to the right of a person in possession of a property to undisturbed enjoyment of it and result from an improper use by another person in his property.
In the present case, the fruits and vegetable seller was lawfully selling his fruits and vegetables as he had a license to do so. Moreover, the queue before his shops was because of people who needed onions from him and not directly because of him as he is not interfering with others' use or enjoyment of land or some right over, or in connection with it. Hence, the defendant is not liable for nuisance.
PRINCIPLE: Everybody is under a legal obligation to take reasonable care to avoid and 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 act.
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.
B is the correct option. Krishnan will not be liable because as per the given principle there is a legal obligation to take reasonable care to avoid and act or omission which he can take reasonable care to avoid and act or omission which “he can foresee would injure his neighbour” and he he could not have foreseen Lakshmi suffering from nervous shock as a result of his act.
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.
The correct option is C.
The principle states that nobody shall unlawfully interfere with a person’s use or enjoyment.
Hence starting a typing class is not an unlawful activity therefore pavan is not liable.
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?
B is the correct option. R has bought the ticket of IPL and buying a ticket affirms the risk associated with the ticket. So, R has given the consent of any risk.