|1 Crore+ students have signed up on EduRev. Have you?|
Principle: A person is liable for all the injuries caused on account of consequences of his careless act.
Facts: Ram, a snake charmer, was exhibiting his talents to a group of people. One of the snakes escaped and bit a child who had to be hospitalized for two days for treatment.
Principle: A master shall be responsible for the wrongful acts of his servants in the course of his employment.
Facts: The Syndicate Bank was running a small savings scheme under which its authorized agents would go round and collect small savings from several people on a daily basis. These agents would get commission, on the deposits so collected. Ananth was one such agent, collecting deposits from factory workers engaged on daily wages. Though he regularly carried on his business for some time, slowly he started appropriating deposits for his personal use and one day he just disappeared. One Fatima, who had been handing over her savings to him found that nearly for a month before his disappearance, he was not depositing her savings at all. The bank, when approached, took the stand that Ananth was not its regular and paid employee and, therefore, it was not responsible for his misconduct. She filed a suit against the bank.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: If there is infringement of legal right of a person, he can sue under torts for compensation even if he has not suffered any harm or loss of a single penny.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Mr. B, a bank manager refuses to honour a cheque presented by C, a customer. He knows that C has sufficient funds in his account. Can C sue B under torts and claim compensation?
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Violation of a legal Right, with or without damage, give rise to a tort
FACTUAL SITUATION: ‘A’ establishes a coaching class and charge ‘5000 per year as fees. A’s neighbour ‘B’ establishes another coaching class thereby creating a competition. This forces A to reduce his fees to ‘3000 per year.
Q. Can ‘A’ claim damages from ‘B’ for the loss caused to him?
LEGAL PRINCIPLE: No remedy for the injury caused by an act; to which one has voluntarily consented.
FACTUAL SITUATION: In an exhibition cricket match, Sachin hit a full toss delivery of Shane Bond over the fence for a six. The ball fell on the head of Egghead, a spectator, and severely injured him. Egghead had purchased a ticket costing 1000 to watch the match. Egghead and the organizers of the match are sworn enemies.
LEGAL PRINCIPAL: Damage cannot be claimed against a risk to which consent has been given. The principal does not apply to rescue cases.
FACTUAL SITUATION: X and Y bought tickets to have a ringside view of a football match. During the course of the game a hard kick from one of the players caused the ball of hit X on his nose, causing bleeding and nausea. After half time the organizers allowed entry of more spectators than the seating capacity of the stadium. In the resulting stampede R and S who were watching the match since the beginning got injured. Five minutes before close of play, a part of the stadium rood broke loose. Y rushed to save children sitting beneath the roof and in the process injured herself. In separate actions filed by the injured persons, Decide
LEGAL PRINCIPAL: Even if the sovereign functions of the State are discharged negligently the state is not vicariously liable in tort.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A was a trader in gold. There he was arrested by police and was detained in the police lock up after search. The gold with him along with sundry other things were seized. Later he was discharged. His possessions seized by the police were returned, except the gold. He moved against the State in tort. In the words of Supreme Court, “There can be no escape from the conclusion that the Police Officers were negligent in dealing with the property after it was seized” One of the Constables was a Muslim. He fled with gold to Pakistan.
According to the principe ‘Even if the sovereign functions of the State are discharged negligently the state is not vicariously liable in tort.’
Assertion (A): when you invite somebody to your house, you cannot sue him for trespass.
Reason (R): one cannot enforce a right which one has voluntarily waived or abandoned
‘X’ with a view to murdering ‘Y’ enters ‘Y’ bedroom at night when ‘Y’ is out of station. What is ‘X’ guilty of?
Legal principle: whoever uses force without any lawful justification is deemed to commit battery
Facts: Mary and Maya have an argument over an issue in the classroom. In order to take revenge over this Mary tries to humiliate maya in front of the other classmates by pulling the chair the moment she is about to sit on the chair. Though maya falls, she is not hurt. However she files a case against mary for battery.
Q. Is mary liable?
The correct option is D.
Battery is referred to as an intentional tort involving unwanted physical contact, that may or may not cause physical harm. The four essential requirements:
(1) Intent: the person accused of committing the act must have intended to cause some unwanted contact and not necessarily the harm that has been caused.
(2) Contact: It refers to a non-consensual contact that is made with the victim or to the victim's extended personality i.e. on any property on the body of the victim.
(3) Harm: It is not necessary to prove any actual physical injury. Rather the plaintiff must prove an unpermitted contact in a harmful or offensive manner.
(4) Damages: it includes physical, emotional or monetary harm.
In the present instance, all these instances have been proved against Mary
Legal Principle: A person is entitled to use reasonable force for self defence.
Facts: Gokul was living in a farm house with a few family members. One night, a group of robbers broke open a door of the house and there was scuffle b/w the intruders and the residents. Gokul took out his pistol and fired a shot at one of the intruders. The shot did not hit the target and the robbers ran out of the house and by that time, the neighbors gathered in front of the house. Gokul in a fit of anger came out of the house and fired at fleeing robbers who by that time mingled with the neighbors. The shot injured a neighbor and he filed a suit against Gokul.
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.
The correct option is B.
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, roopa will not succeed.
Legal principle: An unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land or some right over or in connection with it is a nuisance in tort.
Facts: Mr. Prasad filed suit against Mr. Shyam for a permanent injunction to restrain him from installing and running flour mill in their premises. According to Mr. Prasad, it created nuisance to them as they were put on the first floor of the same premises.
Q. Will his action succeed?
Complete the sentence:To constitute trespass actual damage is………………………..
The correct option is A.
In negligent commission of trespass to a person, the plaintiff needs to prove 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.
In an action for trespass, burden to prove justification is on the…………………….
X actually beats B with a stick. He has committed the offence of………………….
The correct option is B
Battery is defined as an intentional offensive or harmful touching of another person that is done without his or her consent. Since an assault is the threatening of harm, and a battery is the actual act of harm, the two crimes are often charged together
A throws water on B and the drop of the water falls on B. A committed
Vicarious liability is based on which of the following principle?
The correct option is A.
Vicarious liability is a form of a strict, secondary liability that 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.
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.
Q. 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.
Q. 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).
Q. 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.
Q. 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.
Q. 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.
Q. 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.
Q. Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?
PRINCIPLE: Whosoever by his act or omission causes environmental pollution shall be held liable for any loss caused by such pollution. It shall be no defence in such cases that all due diligence or reasonable care was taken while carrying out the act or omission in question.
FACTS: Hari is carrying on a chemical and fertilizer industry near a bank of a river. In order to prevent and control any kind of harm to the environment, suitable waste treatment and disposal plants were installed in the factory. Due to some sudden mechanical/ technical problem, these plants ceased to work properly and therefore, caused environmental pollution, which ultimately caused substantial harm to the environment and to the people living around the factory. Victims of such pollution file a suit for suitable remedy.
PRINCIPLE: Qui facit per alium facit per se, i.e., he who does things through others does it himself.
FACTS: Nisha, the owner of a car, asked her friend Saurabh to take her car and drive the same to her office. As the car was near her office, it hit a pedestrian Srikant on account of Saurabh’s negligent driving and injured him seriously. Now, Srikant files a suit for damages against Nisha.
PRINCIPLE: 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.
Injuria sine damnum 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. Therefore, plaintiff will compensated if his legal rights are violated even though there is no actual damage/loss is suffered.This maxim has been explained in the above mentioned case as Ms A's right was violated.
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.
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.
As an element of the tort of defamation, publication means that
D is the correct option. 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.
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
Both A and R are true but R is not the true explanation of A. damnum sine injuria (Anand Singh v Ram Chandra AIR 1953\ 28)1953 28) is the converse of injuria sine damno (Ashby v White (1703)2(1703)2 Lord Rayam 938938). In some cases the loss is not actionable in tort (damnum sine injuria), conversely, there are cases in which an act is actionable although it has caused no loss at all (injuria sine damno). No action lies for mere damage, however substantial, caused by some act which does not violate a legal right but that an action does lie in certain cases of interference with another's a legal private right, even where it causes no actual damage. example: a trespass. There may certain legal wrongs which may cause no loss or damage to another, yet the law provides a legal remedy although there is only a violation of private legal right.
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 answer is D. R is the correct reason for the assertion.
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.
The correct answer is C as the reason given is false in relation to the statement given
In an auction sale, X is the highest bidder. The auctioneer accepts the offer not by speaking but striking the hammer on the table. This amounts to :
The correct option is A. As the acceptance took place by actions rather that oral or uttered words.
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:
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
Liability in tort depends upon
The correct option is D.
A tort, in common law jurisdiction, is a civil wrong (other than breach of contract) that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. It can include intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, financial losses, injuries, invasion of privacy, and many other things.
Tort law involves claims in an action seeking to obtain a private civil remedy, typically money damages.
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.
PRINCIPLE: Res ipsa loquitur, i.e., the thing speaks for itself
FACTS: Seema got herself operated for the removal of her uterus in the defendant’s hospital, as there was diagnosed to be a cyst in one of her ovaries. Due the negligence of the surgeon, who performed the operation, abdominal pack was left in her abdomen. The same was removed by a second surgery.
PRINCIPLE: When an act, which would otherwise be an offence, is not that offence by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, every person has the same right of private defence against that act, which he would have if the act were that offence. Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.
FACTS: A, under the influence of madness, attempts to kill B. B in order to save his life cause grievous hurt to A.
PRINCIPLE: Whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said to defame that person.
FACTS: In a community there is a custom of stealing shoes of bridegroom during the marriage ceremony. The shoes of the bridegroom were stolen by Y, A announced that Z has stolen the shoes. Everyone present in the marriage party started staring at Z with great surprise. Z felt very ashamed.
The correct option is A.
The shoes were stolen by Y, but A tried to put the blame on Z and he fell ashamed.and according to the 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.
Which of the following is not an objective of the law of tort?