|1 Crore+ students have signed up on EduRev. Have you?|
Assertion: H writes to his wife a letter, which contains defamatory matter about B. H is not liable to B for defamation
Reason: Communication of defamatory matter by a husband to his wife or vice versa is not a publication, for what passes between them is protected.
The correct answer is A as acc to the principle husband n wife are treated as the same entity i.e. only one person no other person.
Assertion: Government cannot be held liable for the rots committed by its servant
Reason: A master is liable for the torts committed by his servant in the course of his employment
Assertion: A person can claim damages if he has sustained any loss monetary or otherwise
Reason: where there is infringement of a legal right, law allows compensation
The last opportunity principle is related to the:
As an element of the tort of defamation, publication means that
Assertion: No action lies for mere damage caused by some act which does not violate a legal right
Reason: An action lies for interference with another legal right even where it causes no actual damage
The crrect option is C
the assertion talks about damnum sine injuria while the reasoning talks about injuria sine damnum and both of them are individually true
Assertion: A wooden chair while being used by a guest caused injury to him to defective manufacture. The guest is entitled to claim damages from the maker.
Reason: Manufacture owes a duty of care to the ultimate user
The correct option is D.
According to the Law of Torts, both A and R are true and R is the correct explanation of A, which states that it is the sole responsibility and duty to take care while making any product, towards the ultimate user, so the guest is entitled to claim damages from the maker or manufacturer.
Assertion: The plaintiff can sue all or any number of joint tort feasors
Reason: when several persons join in the commission of a tort is individually responsible as if each alone had committed it.
Assertion: A person, who moves to a place neared the place of nuisance can complain of nuisance
Reason: Coming to the place of nuisance is a good defence
Two or more person can be made joint tort-feasors, if they have:
The correct option is A.
Joint or common action- In the law of torts two or more persons are said to be joint tortfeasors if they act jointly in the tort or a same suit of action is followed if one defendant has incited another to commit the tort.
A building was erected by the defendant, which caused diminution of light to two ground floor windows of the plaintiff house. Subsequently electric lights were always needed in the place. An action for damages can be brought on the ground
A has grown a tree on his land. The branches of the tree are overhanging on the land of B. under the law B is entitled to:
The correct option is C.
If the branches of a neighbour’s tree start to grow over to your side, you can cut them back to the boundary point between you and your neighbour’s property, as long as the tree is not under a tree preservation order. If it is, you’ll need to seek further clarification. However, the branches and any fruit on them which you may have cut down on your side still belong to the tree owner so they can ask you to return them.
The plaintiff, a lady visitor to a restaurant was injured by the ceiling fan which fell on her. The reason for the falling of the fan was a latent/hidden defect in the metal of the suspension rod of the fan. In an action against the defendant, he is:
A patient is brought to a hospital maintained by B. The patient is to be operated upon. If as a result of faulty oxygen supply machine, the patient dies on the operation table, then:
Which of the following correctly identifies the remedies available to the victim in case of false imprisonment?
The correct option is C.
There are three remedies for false imprisonment. They are damages, habeas corpus and self help. Being a tort, the basic remedy for false imprisonment is an action for damages which can be due to physical or mental suffering, loss of reputation or even malicious intent on behalf of the defendant.
X along with other passengers hired a bus owned by Y and driven by his driver Z. in the mid-way, the bus was punctured. So Y transferred X and other passengers to another bus owned by L, and driven by his servant R. The second bus met with an accident, in which X died and some other passengers were injured. W, X widow, sued for her husband death. In this case which one of the following is correct?
As the facts are silent (no principle is given)... more we aren't bound to any principle Here master servant relationship is established so the master of the bus will be liable i.e., 'L'
In which one of the following situations A will be liable for defamation? A writes a letter containing a defamatory matter about B and
When a master A has lent only the labour of his servant to another master B, who of the following is/are liable for the wrongful acts of the servant?
The correct option is C.
According to the principle of vicarious liability under law of torts, the real master is vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of the servant, unless and until there is an express contract contrary to it.
Principle: A person is entitled to protect his property by using lawful means.
Facts: Ramlal is growing valuable vegetables and fruits in his farm and he has fenced the farm to prevent the cattle from entering into it. In addition he has kept a ferocious dog to chase away intruding urchins and cattles. Some children were playing in a nearby playground and the ball slipped into the farm. A boy running after the ball came near the fence and shouted for the ball. When there was no response, he managed to creep into the farm to get the ball. The dog which was surreptitiously waiting attacked the boy and badly mauled him. The boy's parents filed a suit against Ramlal.
Principle: `Volenti non fit injuria', a well-established legal principle, means that a person has no legal remedy for the injury caused by an act which he has consented.
Situation: An old man was walking in a narrow one-way lane in the opposite direction. It was night-time and there was no street lighting. A car moving in right direction but without headlights knocked him down since the driver could not see him. He filed a suit against the driver.
Legal Principle: Volenti non fit injuria means a person has no remedy against an injury caused by an act to which he has consented.
Situation: Ravi was in a hurry to get to the airport to catch the plane and he hired a taxi run by Sekhon Taxi Stand, well known in that locality. Ravi asked the driver to drive fast. In the city zone, there was a speed limit of 60 km per hours and the driver, rather reluctantly, drove quite fast at times 90 km per hour to reach the airport in time. As a result, the driver lost control and hit an obstacle and Ravi was badly injured. Ravi filed a suit against the taxi stand.
Principle: Every person has a right to defend his own person, property or possession against an immediate harm, and to that end, may use reasonable amount of force.
Situation: Mr Rajesh was passing by Mrs Saxena's house. At that time, Mrs Saxena's dog ran out and bit Mr Rajesh's overcoat. Mr Rajesh turned around and raised the pistol at shot at the dog when the dog was running away. Mr Rajesh. knew that the dog had attacked so many other people in that locality of Jammu.Mrs Saxena claims that her dog was of a rare breed and it was worth Rs. 5000. She is planning to bring a legal action against Mr Rajesh for compensation.
Principle: A person cannot complain against a harm to which he has voluntarily consented. Precautions can be taken only against reasonably foreseeable mishaps.
Situation: At an athletic meet, during a hammer throw, the hammer came apart and hit a middle distance runner who was sitting 10 meters outside the throwing area. The runner sustained severe injuries on the head and neck. The runner filed a suit for damages. The standard precautions were taken for throwing the 7 kg hammer. The runner
(i) would be able to recover because the organizers had failed to keep the equipment in good condition.
(ii) would not be able to recover because the injuries were caused in a freak accident.
(iii) would not be able to recover because she had agreed to participate in the sports meet with all the expectant risks.
(iv) would not be able to recover because the accident was not reasonably foreseeable.
Principle: Injuria Sine Damnum i.e. Injury (violation of legal right) without damage
Facts: X, who was the returning officer at a polling booth in Amethi, wrongly refused to register a duly tendered vote of Y in the recent UP elections, even though Y was an eligible voter. The candidate in whose favour Y wanted to vote, was declared elected.Give the appropriate answer-
Principal: 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.
Principle: Vicarious liability is the liability the Master or Principal for the tort committed in the course of employment. The wrongs of the servant/agent
Facts ‘X’ hands over some cash money at his house to ‘Y’, who is his (X’s) neighbor 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.
Principle: Damage without the violation of a legal right is not actionable in a court of law. It 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’ has caused it (‘ES’) financial loss and thus claimed compensation.
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.
Q. 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.
Q. 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.
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.
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:
C is the correct option. According to Principal 4 Manufacturer will be liable for the quality of the goods. So, Shama is responsible for selling the defective product and Tom can get the compensation as per the principle.
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:
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:
Principle 2 applies in his case.
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:
The correct option is C.
The bank is not liable to compensate. The bank was unknown of the fact of Rama Bhai and Keshav. A servant is locked in less than a contract of administrations though a self employed entity is locked in less than a contract for administrations. The obligation of the business for the wrongs submitted by his servant is more difficult than his risk in regard to wrongs submitted by a self employed entity. In the event that a servant does an unfair demonstration over the span of his business, the master is at risk for it. The servant, obviously, is additionally obligated.
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:
In the present case, the organizers won't be liable to compensate the injured person because the organizers could not have foreseen somebody watching the game by climbing up a tree.
Here the defence made by the defendant that he is not guilty under the maxim volenti non fit injuria which means to a willing person, injury is not done. This defence absolves the defendant from all liability to which the plaintiff has consented in full knowledge of the risk involved presuming that the defendant will not be negligent. Burden of proof is on the defendant. Restriction on this defence is that the plaintiff must be capable of giving consent and it must be given voluntarily. If this defence would not have been available with the defendant then he would have been liable for those injuries also which were known to the plaintiff and were not caused because his negligence. Also, in the case of Halls vs. Brooklands Auto Racing Club, which was the case of volunti non fir injuria, the court held that If a person consents to harm committed on him, that person cannot be permitted to sue the other for the tort. Consent to such harm can be either implied or expressed. In the case of express consent, the consent is open and either verbal or contractual. In the case of Volenti Non-Fit Injuria, the plaintiff’s consent serves as a defense against him.
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:
The term ‘Scienter’ is related to which one of the following sign boards
The remedies provided by the Human Rights Act 1998 are intended to regulate the activities of whom?