All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
Verbal Exam  >  Verbal Questions  >  "a snake charmer was entertaining a crowd why... Start Learning for Free
"a snake charmer was entertaining a crowd why holding the snake and the snake bite a child from the crowd and he/she died" who's liable here? if the charmer is liable, why is the child not because it's a volenti non fit injuria case too and if the child is liable, why is it not a case of negligence on the charmer's part?
Clear all your Verbal doubts with EduRev
Most Upvoted Answer
"a snake charmer was entertaining a crowd why holding the snake and th...
Ofcourse the charmer is liable here. cuz it is the duty of the charmer to make a safe zone for his show . the quest. repeatedly arises is , how & why the charmer (or the snake ) crosses his safe zone (for his show) and goes into a danzer zone(for the crowd).Reply to Mr. Manu & Ms. Shivani : No! I don't agree. In my opinion, This would not be the case of "volenti non fit injuria".The point is extremely noticeable that ''the charmer is holding the snake." and if he is holding the snake then it becomes his duty to control the snake from biting a person. And also you must remember the snake is a wild animal and if the creature like snake is brought near you to entertain by anyone then he/she must deploy a security system which was not provided by the charmer.
Community Answer
"a snake charmer was entertaining a crowd why holding the snake and th...
It totally depends on the principle give if it's of volenti non fit injuria then the answer would be different ,if it's of negligence then the charmer will be libel
Explore Courses for Verbal exam

Similar Verbal Doubts

As formal organizations, business corporations are distinguished by their particular goals, which include maximization of profits, growth, and survival. Providing goods and services is a means to this end. If, for example, a number of individuals (outsiders or even insiders) believe that a company‘s aggressive marketing of infant formula in third world countries is morally wrong, the company is unlikely to be moved by arguments based on ethos alone as long as what it is doing remains profitable. But if those opposed to the company‘s practice organize a highly effective boycott of the company‘s products, their moral views will soon enter into the company‘s deliberations indirectly as limiting operating conditions. They can, at this point, no more be ignored than a prohibitive increase in the costs of certain raw materials. Although the concepts and categories of ethics may be applied to the conduct of corporations, there are important differences between the values and principles underlying corporate behaviour and those underlying the actions of most individuals. If corporations are by their nature end- or goal-directed how can they acknowledge acts as wrong in and of themselves? Is it possible to hold one criminally responsible for acts that if performed by a human person would result in criminal liability? The first case of this type to achieve widespread public attention was the attempt to prosecute the Ford Motor Company for manslaughter as the result of alleged negligent or reckless decision making concerning the safety engineering of the Pinto vehicle. Although the defendant corporation and its officers were found innocent after trial, the case can serve as an exemplar for our purposes. In essence, the prosecution in this case attempted to show that the corporation had produced and distributed a vehicle that was known to be defective at the time of production and sale, and that even after a great deal of additional information accumulated regarding the nature of the problems, the corporation took no action to correct them. The obvious non-corporate analogy would be the prosecution of a person who was driving a car with brakes known to be faulty, who does not have them repaired because it would cost too much, and who kills someone when the brakes eventually fail and the car does not stop in time. Such cases involving individuals are prosecuted and won regularly. If corporations have no concept of right or wrong because they are exclusively goal-directed, can they be convicted in cases of this type, and what purpose would be served by such a conviction? Perhaps we can make a utilitarian argument for convicting corporations of such crimes. The argument would be that of deterrence; conviction and punishment would deter other corporations from taking similar actions under similar circumstances. However, there appears to be considerable evidence that deterrence does not work on corporations, even if, arguably, it works on individuals. The possibility of being discovered and the potential magnitude of the fine merely become more data to be included in the analysis of limiting conditions. Directions: Read the above paragraph and answer the following: Q. If a company that produced shampoo products opted to stop the routine testing of its products on animals because it decided that it is wrong to cause the animals pain, what effect would this have on the argument made in the passage?

Courage is not only the basis of virtue; it is its expression. faith, hope, charity and all the rest dont become virtues until it takes courage to exercise them. There are roughly two types of courage. the first an emotional state which urges a man to risk injury or death, is physical courage. The second, more reasoning attitude which enables him to take coolly his career, happiness, his whole future or his judgement of what he thinks either right or worthwhile, is moral courage.I have known many men, who had marked physical courage, but lacked moral courage. Some of them were in high places, but they failed to be great in themselves because they lacked moral courage. On the other hand I have seen men who undoubtedly possessed moral courage but were very cautious about taking physical risks. But I have never met a man with moral courage who couldnt, when it was really necessary, face a situation boldly.All virtues become meaningful because of

"a snake charmer was entertaining a crowd why holding the snake and the snake bite a child from the crowd and he/she died" who's liable here? if the charmer is liable, why is the child not because it's a volenti non fit injuria case too and if the child is liable, why is it not a case of negligence on the charmer's part?
Question Description
"a snake charmer was entertaining a crowd why holding the snake and the snake bite a child from the crowd and he/she died" who's liable here? if the charmer is liable, why is the child not because it's a volenti non fit injuria case too and if the child is liable, why is it not a case of negligence on the charmer's part? for Verbal 2025 is part of Verbal preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the Verbal exam syllabus. Information about "a snake charmer was entertaining a crowd why holding the snake and the snake bite a child from the crowd and he/she died" who's liable here? if the charmer is liable, why is the child not because it's a volenti non fit injuria case too and if the child is liable, why is it not a case of negligence on the charmer's part? covers all topics & solutions for Verbal 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for "a snake charmer was entertaining a crowd why holding the snake and the snake bite a child from the crowd and he/she died" who's liable here? if the charmer is liable, why is the child not because it's a volenti non fit injuria case too and if the child is liable, why is it not a case of negligence on the charmer's part?.
Solutions for "a snake charmer was entertaining a crowd why holding the snake and the snake bite a child from the crowd and he/she died" who's liable here? if the charmer is liable, why is the child not because it's a volenti non fit injuria case too and if the child is liable, why is it not a case of negligence on the charmer's part? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for Verbal. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for Verbal Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of "a snake charmer was entertaining a crowd why holding the snake and the snake bite a child from the crowd and he/she died" who's liable here? if the charmer is liable, why is the child not because it's a volenti non fit injuria case too and if the child is liable, why is it not a case of negligence on the charmer's part? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of "a snake charmer was entertaining a crowd why holding the snake and the snake bite a child from the crowd and he/she died" who's liable here? if the charmer is liable, why is the child not because it's a volenti non fit injuria case too and if the child is liable, why is it not a case of negligence on the charmer's part?, a detailed solution for "a snake charmer was entertaining a crowd why holding the snake and the snake bite a child from the crowd and he/she died" who's liable here? if the charmer is liable, why is the child not because it's a volenti non fit injuria case too and if the child is liable, why is it not a case of negligence on the charmer's part? has been provided alongside types of "a snake charmer was entertaining a crowd why holding the snake and the snake bite a child from the crowd and he/she died" who's liable here? if the charmer is liable, why is the child not because it's a volenti non fit injuria case too and if the child is liable, why is it not a case of negligence on the charmer's part? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice "a snake charmer was entertaining a crowd why holding the snake and the snake bite a child from the crowd and he/she died" who's liable here? if the charmer is liable, why is the child not because it's a volenti non fit injuria case too and if the child is liable, why is it not a case of negligence on the charmer's part? tests, examples and also practice Verbal tests.
Explore Courses for Verbal exam
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App for FREE
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup