|1 Crore+ students have signed up on EduRev. Have you?|
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?
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.
The old man was walking on a one way lane and as such there are no traffic rules applicable to pedestrians. Now, the car driver was driving his car without headlights, which is a gross violation on his part. Therefore, he is liable to the old man because had he driven the car with headlights on, he could have averted the collision. The Docttrine of last opportunity applies here.
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.
The correct option is C.
it was a negligent act on the driver’s part to exceed the speed limit, that too by a significant amount. The driver is the person who is aware of the road regulations, so it was his duty to remain within its limits, despite any requests from the passenger. Also, requesting the driver to drive fast, does not translate into accepting liability for an untoward accident caused by the drive.
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.
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 : 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 to take A’s vote. Inspite of such wrongful refusal, the candidate, for whom ‘A’ wanted to vote, won the election. But ‘A’ brought an action for damages.
Principal : 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.
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 to liable if the wrongful act committed by his servant has no connection, whatsoever, with the servant’s 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 (‘D’) 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
Principle : The constitution of India guarantees the ‘right to life’, which means to life under the constitution, however, does not include the right to die.
Facts : ‘M’ who is 90, lives all alone as he has no family or children or grandchildren. He suffers from physical and mental distress, as there is no one to look after him. He has little means to foot his medical expenses. Under these circumstances, he should be granted the right to die with dignity because he does not want to be a burden on the society. Further, as it is his life, he has a right to put an end to it.
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
Principle: Nuisance is an unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment with it, if the interference is connection 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’.
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 intend 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 come on the way and took away S’s bicycle. The watchmen of the stand did not take care of it assuming that the bicycle was to parked inside the stand. ‘S’ filed a suit against ‘R’ for conversion.
Assertion (A): In the event of violation of any legal right (tort) the aggrieved party is entitled to recover unliquidated damages.
Reason (R): The object of awarding damages to the aggrieved party is to put him in the same position in which he would have been if the wrong would not have been committed. Damages are, therefore, assessed on that basis.
Assertion (A): The Constitution of India provides for the appointment of a Governor for a period of five years.
Reason (R): The Governor holds office during the pleasure of the President.
The correct option is A.
The Constitution of India provides for the appointment of a Governor for a period of five years, the governor is appointed by president thus The Governor holds office during the pleasure of the President.
Which of the following acts invite tortuous liability and is not saved by the doctrine "volenti non fit injuria"?
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:
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:
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
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.
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
As an element of the tort of defamation, publication means that
The correct option is D.
The statement must be 'published' to a third party, who cannot also be the person who is being defamed. Publishing in this context does not mean that it must be printed, but purely that the statement has to be 'made available' to someone other than the person about whom the statement was made.
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.
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.
The correct option is A.
Trespass to goods means wrongful interference with the goods in possession of another. It is an wrongful act punishable under tort.In the above case X removing the car (which does not belong to him) can be held responsible for trespass to goods.
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.
Q. 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.
Q. 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.
Q. Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?
Assertion (A): In the Event of violation of any legal right (tort) the aggrieved party is entitled to recover unliquidated damages.
Reason (R): The object of awarding damages to the aggrieved party is to put him in the same position in which he would have been if the wrong would not have been committed. Damages are therefore, assessed on that basis.
Legal Principle — A master will be liable for the wrongful acts of his servants in the course of employment.
Factual situation — Mrs. Nitu, an old woman had an account in a bank. Mr. Robert, her tenant used to collect Rs. 100/- from Mrs. Nitu and deposited it every week in the account of Mrs. Nitu. Mr. Robert got a commission from the bank for depositing that amount every week. After few months of this transaction it was found that Mr. Robert had not deposited the amount for five months in the account and that he had run away with that amount. Mrs. Nitu filed a suit against the bank.
Q. Is the bank liable?
Legal Principle — A violation of a Legal Right, with or without damage, gives rise to a tort.
Factual Situation - ‘A’ establishes a coaching class and charge Rs. 5000/- per year as fees. ‘A’s neighbor ‘B’ establishes another coaching class thereby creating a competition; this forces ‘A’ to reduce his fees to
Rs. 3000/- per year.
Q. Can ‘A’ claim damages from ‘B’ for the loss caused to him?
Legal Principle - A parent is not liable for a tort committed by his/her child except when the parent affords
the child an opportunity to commit the tort.
Factual Situation - A mother takes her 7 year old son with her to market. On reaching the market she shuts the car ignition, pulls the handbrake and puts the car in gear. She leaves her son in the car only. The child starts playing with the car; he releases the brakes and pushes the gear lever to neutral. As a result, the car starts moving down the road and runs down a pedestrian.
Q. What is the liability of the mother?
B is the correct option. Mother is liable for his negligence because she puts the car in gear which shows her negligence.
Legal Principle - Whoever uses force without any lawful justification is deemed to commit battery.
Factual Situation - 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?
Maya is liable because her actions are not justified as there exist no justified reason. So option D 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?