Needed a Document for general defence of tort for clat? Related: General Defences - Law of Tort?

Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.The defence of private defence has been provided under the IPC from S. 96 to 106.These provisions give the power to a person to protect his own body and property. Body may be of oneself or another persons; likewise, property might also be moveable or immoveable, of himself or of another in cases of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass or an attempt to do so. However, there are important limits on the right of private defence. Firstly, you cannot claim private defence for an act which under any circumstances justifies anything which was no defence but an offence and secondly, the right cannot be claimed when you yourself has initiated the attack.In Laxman v. State of Orissa, it was held that the right to private defence can only be provided when the person availing it is suddenly confronted with immediate necessity to defend which is not of his own creation, further the necessity should be present, real and apparent.The right of private defence does not exist for an act which is not an offence under the Penal Code and can only be availed to repel unlawful aggression and not for retaliation. Private defence will also not be valid in cases of self-defence.In Chacko v. State of Kerala, the deceased reached the scene with a chopper after finding out that his brother was surrounded by armed assailants. It was held that no aggressor can claim private defence only on the ground that the deceased had a chopper.Section 98 provides for the right of private defence in cases of unsoundness of mind and others such as due to the reason of youth, maturity in understanding, insanity, intoxication or by misconception; a person would have the right to private defence even if the act is not an offence. Say, A attempts to kill B due to unsoundness of mind and madness. A will not be guilty of any offence, but B will have the right to private defence in the same manner as if A was sane.Section 100 provides for acts where the right of private defence of body extends to causing death; they are: assault which causes the apprehension of death or grievous hurt, assault for commission of rape, assault for gratifying unnatural lust, kidnapping or abducting, assault for confining a person, or an act or attempt of throwing or administering an acid attack.Section 103 of the Code provides for the right of private defence of property which has caused death, namely robbery, housebreaking at night, mischief by fire on any building, tent or vessel, which is a human dwelling, theft, mischief, or house-trespass which causes apprehension of death or grievous hurt.The burden of proof always lies on the accused in the case of the General Exceptions of the IPC. The accused needs to prove his innocence to avail these defences.Q.Sam had apprehension that Ram was coming to kill him. Sam took it on himself, and started preparing for defence and obtained a gun. Next day when he saw Ram running towards him to hit him, he shot Ram and injured his leg. Will Sam be protected under private defence?a)No, as it was not a sudden or an immediate threat.b)Yes, he had apprehension of death and he had the right to private defence.c)No, he cannot claim private defence as he used excessive force.d)Yes, he saw Ram coming to attack him and rightly protected himself.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Principle: If in the exercise of the right of private defence against an assault which reasonably causes the apprehension of death, the defender is so situated that he cannot effectually exercise that right without risk of harm of an innocent person; his right of private defence extends to the running of that risk.Facts: A is attacked by a mob who attempts to murder him. He cannot effectually exercise his right of private defence without firing on the mob, and he cannot fire without risk of harming young children who are mingled with the mob.a)A commits no offence if by so firing he harms any of the children.b)A commits an offence of murderc)Firing in the public place is an offence, so he is liabled)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.The defence of private defence has been provided under the IPC from S. 96 to 106.These provisions give the power to a person to protect his own body and property. Body may be of oneself or another persons; likewise, property might also be moveable or immoveable, of himself or of another in cases of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass or an attempt to do so. However, there are important limits on the right of private defence. Firstly, you cannot claim private defence for an act which under any circumstances justifies anything which was no defence but an offence and secondly, the right cannot be claimed when you yourself has initiated the attack.In Laxman v. State of Orissa, it was held that the right to private defence can only be provided when the person availing it is suddenly confronted with immediate necessity to defend which is not of his own creation, further the necessity should be present, real and apparent.The right of private defence does not exist for an act which is not an offence under the Penal Code and can only be availed to repel unlawful aggression and not for retaliation. Private defence will also not be valid in cases of self-defence.In Chacko v. State of Kerala, the deceased reached the scene with a chopper after finding out that his brother was surrounded by armed assailants. It was held that no aggressor can claim private defence only on the ground that the deceased had a chopper.Section 98 provides for the right of private defence in cases of unsoundness of mind and others such as due to the reason of youth, maturity in understanding, insanity, intoxication or by misconception; a person would have the right to private defence even if the act is not an offence. Say, A attempts to kill B due to unsoundness of mind and madness. A will not be guilty of any offence, but B will have the right to private defence in the same manner as if A was sane.Section 100 provides for acts where the right of private defence of body extends to causing death; they are: assault which causes the apprehension of death or grievous hurt, assault for commission of rape, assault for gratifying unnatural lust, kidnapping or abducting, assault for confining a person, or an act or attempt of throwing or administering an acid attack.Section 103 of the Code provides for the right of private defence of property which has caused death, namely robbery, housebreaking at night, mischief by fire on any building, tent or vessel, which is a human dwelling, theft, mischief, or house-trespass which causes apprehension of death or grievous hurt.The burden of proof always lies on the accused in the case of the General Exceptions of the IPC. The accused needs to prove his innocence to avail these defences.Q.A robber entered a house at night inhabited by Karun and Sheila. The robber broke into the house, but had not stolen anything yet. Karun got furious and grabbed a bat and thrashed him, which resulted in the death of the robber. Was Karuns act justified under law?Decide.a)No, as the robber had not committed robbery yet.b)Yes, Karun felt a threat to his property and was hence justified in his acts.c)Yes, as the robber broke into the house at night.d)No, Karun reacted with an offensive measure when the defence wasnt necessary.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

DIRECTIONS for the question:Mark the best option:Principles:"Arms" refers to any article, of any description, designed or adapted as weapons of offence or defense, but does not include articles designed solely for domestic or agricultural uses.Facts:Ravi possesses an iron rod which he keeps on his person for defence. A blow from the rod may prove to be fatal.Q. Is the article in possession a weapon?a)Yesb)Noc)Yes, because it is a weapon of defensed)Yes, because it is a weapon of offence or defence, and because it is not an article used domestically or in agricultureCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.The defence of private defence has been provided under the IPC from S. 96 to 106.These provisions give the power to a person to protect his own body and property. Body may be of oneself or another persons; likewise, property might also be moveable or immoveable, of himself or of another in cases of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass or an attempt to do so. However, there are important limits on the right of private defence. Firstly, you cannot claim private defence for an act which under any circumstances justifies anything which was no defence but an offence and secondly, the right cannot be claimed when you yourself has initiated the attack.In Laxman v. State of Orissa, it was held that the right to private defence can only be provided when the person availing it is suddenly confronted with immediate necessity to defend which is not of his own creation, further the necessity should be present, real and apparent.The right of private defence does not exist for an act which is not an offence under the Penal Code and can only be availed to repel unlawful aggression and not for retaliation. Private defence will also not be valid in cases of self-defence.In Chacko v. State of Kerala, the deceased reached the scene with a chopper after finding out that his brother was surrounded by armed assailants. It was held that no aggressor can claim private defence only on the ground that the deceased had a chopper.Section 98 provides for the right of private defence in cases of unsoundness of mind and others such as due to the reason of youth, maturity in understanding, insanity, intoxication or by misconception; a person would have the right to private defence even if the act is not an offence. Say, A attempts to kill B due to unsoundness of mind and madness. A will not be guilty of any offence, but B will have the right to private defence in the same manner as if A was sane.Section 100 provides for acts where the right of private defence of body extends to causing death; they are: assault which causes the apprehension of death or grievous hurt, assault for commission of rape, assault for gratifying unnatural lust, kidnapping or abducting, assault for confining a person, or an act or attempt of throwing or administering an acid attack.Section 103 of the Code provides for the right of private defence of property which has caused death, namely robbery, housebreaking at night, mischief by fire on any building, tent or vessel, which is a human dwelling, theft, mischief, or house-trespass which causes apprehension of death or grievous hurt.The burden of proof always lies on the accused in the case of the General Exceptions of the IPC. The accused needs to prove his innocence to avail these defences.Q.A man, hearing that his friend is in danger and is getting beaten up by a gang, took a hockey stick and went to the place it was happening. The gang, on seeing him arrived with a weapon, out of fear, started beating him and caused injury to him. The gang sought to claim the right of private defence in this matter. Will it succeed?a)Yes, as he was carrying a weapon.b)Yes, it was an immediate and necessary action required because he came ferociously to save his friend.c)No, he had merely brought a weapon but never tried to use it.d)No, a hockey stick is not dangerous enough.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.The defence of private defence has been provided under the IPC from S. 96 to 106.These provisions give the power to a person to protect his own body and property. Body may be of oneself or another persons; likewise, property might also be moveable or immoveable, of himself or of another in cases of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass or an attempt to do so. However, there are important limits on the right of private defence. Firstly, you cannot claim private defence for an act which under any circumstances justifies anything which was no defence but an offence and secondly, the right cannot be claimed when you yourself has initiated the attack.In Laxman v. State of Orissa, it was held that the right to private defence can only be provided when the person availing it is suddenly confronted with immediate necessity to defend which is not of his own creation, further the necessity should be present, real and apparent.The right of private defence does not exist for an act which is not an offence under the Penal Code and can only be availed to repel unlawful aggression and not for retaliation. Private defence will also not be valid in cases of self-defence.In Chacko v. State of Kerala, the deceased reached the scene with a chopper after finding out that his brother was surrounded by armed assailants. It was held that no aggressor can claim private defence only on the ground that the deceased had a chopper.Section 98 provides for the right of private defence in cases of unsoundness of mind and others such as due to the reason of youth, maturity in understanding, insanity, intoxication or by misconception; a person would have the right to private defence even if the act is not an offence. Say, A attempts to kill B due to unsoundness of mind and madness. A will not be guilty of any offence, but B will have the right to private defence in the same manner as if A was sane.Section 100 provides for acts where the right of private defence of body extends to causing death; they are: assault which causes the apprehension of death or grievous hurt, assault for commission of rape, assault for gratifying unnatural lust, kidnapping or abducting, assault for confining a person, or an act or attempt of throwing or administering an acid attack.Section 103 of the Code provides for the right of private defence of property which has caused death, namely robbery, housebreaking at night, mischief by fire on any building, tent or vessel, which is a human dwelling, theft, mischief, or house-trespass which causes apprehension of death or grievous hurt.The burden of proof always lies on the accused in the case of the General Exceptions of the IPC. The accused needs to prove his innocence to avail these defences.Q.A man came to meet his friend at his house. His friend had a sixteen-year-old brother who was of unsound mind. On seeing the man, due to unsoundness, he perceived the man as a threat and tried to choke and kill him. The man while defending himself killed his friends brother. Will he be protected under private defence?a)No, as he was unsound and a child, it is not a criminal act and no private defence applies.b)Yes, the private defence is valid against an unsound person.c)Yes, the man can defend himself just because of childs unsoundness even if the child didnt assault him.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Principle 1: Every person has a right to defend his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body. Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.Principle 2: The right of private defence of the body extends to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant, if the offence reasonably causes the apprehension that death, or grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault. Also, if the assault is with the intention of committing rape, gratifying unnatural lust, kidnapping or abducting, or wrongfully confining a person under circumstances which may reasonably cause him to apprehend that he will be unable to have recourse to the public authorities for his release, he will have the right of private defence of the body extending to causing of death.Principle 3: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act.Facts: Prateek, who is Prakhas younger brother, under the influence of madness, attempts to kill Sachan, who is Prakhas boyfriend. Prakha, not knowing how to react, and seeing Sachan helpless and on the verge of being murdered, hits on Prateeks head with an antique metal vase. Prateek dies on the spot. Can Prakha claim the right of private defence of body?a)No, because Prateek is guilty of no offence since he was of unsound mind.b)Yes, because she was under the apprehension that Prateek will murder Sachan.c)No, because Sachan was being killed, and not Prakha herself. And since this private defence and not public defence, only the victim can avail of this defence, and no one else.d)No, because a mentally-unsound person was punished despite the fact that he had no knowledge of what he was doing. One cannot simply kill innocent people, and then claim private defence.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Prateek, who is Prakha’s younger brother, under the influence of madness, attempts to kill Sachan, who is Prakha’s boyfriend. Prakha, not knowing how to react, and seeing Sachan helpless and on the verge of being murdered, hits on Prateek’s head with an antique metal vase. Prateek dies on the spot. Can Prakha claim the right of private defence of body?Principle 1: Every person has a right to defend his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body. Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.Principle 2: The right of private defence of the body extends to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant, if the offence reasonably causes the apprehension that death, or grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault. Also, if the assault is with the intention of committing rape, gratifying unnatural lust, kidnapping or abducting, or wrongfully confining a person under circumstances which may reasonably cause him to apprehend that he will be unable to have recourse to the public authorities for his release, he will have the right of private defence of the body extending to causing of death.Principle 3: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act.a)No, because Prateek is guilty of no offence since he was of unsound mind.b)Yes, because she was under the apprehension that Prateek will murder Sachan.c)No, because Sachan was being killed, and not Prakha herself. And since this “private” defence and not “public” defence, only the victim can avail of this defence, and no one else.d)No, because a mentally-unsound person was punished despite the fact thathe had no knowledge of what he was doing. One cannot simply kill innocent people, and then claim private defence.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.The defence of private defence has been provided under the IPC from S. 96 to 106.These provisions give the power to a person to protect his own body and property. Body may be of oneself or another persons; likewise, property might also be moveable or immoveable, of himself or of another in cases of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass or an attempt to do so. However, there are important limits on the right of private defence. Firstly, you cannot claim private defence for an act which under any circumstances justifies anything which was no defence but an offence and secondly, the right cannot be claimed when you yourself has initiated the attack.In Laxman v. State of Orissa, it was held that the right to private defence can only be provided when the person availing it is suddenly confronted with immediate necessity to defend which is not of his own creation, further the necessity should be present, real and apparent.The right of private defence does not exist for an act which is not an offence under the Penal Code and can only be availed to repel unlawful aggression and not for retaliation. Private defence will also not be valid in cases of self-defence.In Chacko v. State of Kerala, the deceased reached the scene with a chopper after finding out that his brother was surrounded by armed assailants. It was held that no aggressor can claim private defence only on the ground that the deceased had a chopper.Section 98 provides for the right of private defence in cases of unsoundness of mind and others such as due to the reason of youth, maturity in understanding, insanity, intoxication or by misconception; a person would have the right to private defence even if the act is not an offence. Say, A attempts to kill B due to unsoundness of mind and madness. A will not be guilty of any offence, but B will have the right to private defence in the same manner as if A was sane.Section 100 provides for acts where the right of private defence of body extends to causing death; they are: assault which causes the apprehension of death or grievous hurt, assault for commission of rape, assault for gratifying unnatural lust, kidnapping or abducting, assault for confining a person, or an act or attempt of throwing or administering an acid attack.Section 103 of the Code provides for the right of private defence of property which has caused death, namely robbery, housebreaking at night, mischief by fire on any building, tent or vessel, which is a human dwelling, theft, mischief, or house-trespass which causes apprehension of death or grievous hurt.The burden of proof always lies on the accused in the case of the General Exceptions of the IPC. The accused needs to prove his innocence to avail these defences.Q.X was immediately confronted by Y, who wished to cause grievous hurt to X. X retaliated to protect himself by killing Y. How can X prove his innocence?a)He need not prove his innocence as he would be protected under S. 100.b)He has to prove that there was an immediate and necessary action required by him.c)He cannot kill him in this case and innocence cannot be proved.d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Principle:1. Every person has a right to defend his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body.2. The right of private defence in no case extends to inflicting more harm than necessary for the purpose of defence.Facts: Rajendra, a police inspector; saw two men on motorbikes; one armed with a stick and the other armed with a scythe chasing a boy and warned them to stop harassing the boy however they continued pursuing the boy. Rajendra who was carrying a loaded revolver (and nothing else) shot the man carrying a stick on head thereby killing him instantly and the other carrying a scythe on his legs causing him to fall down.Q. Decide Rajendra's liability based on the facts mentioned above.a)Both acts done by Rajendra are justifiable as acts done in exercise of the right to private defence.b)Rajendra's act of shooting the man on leg only; is justifiable as an act done in exercise of the right to private defence.c)Rajendra's act of shooting the man on head only; is justifiable as an act done in exercise of the right to private defence.d)Rajendra's act of shooting the man on leg is not justifiable as an act done in exercise of the right to private defence.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

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.a)A has committed an offenceb)A has not committed an offencec)B has committed an offenced)B has not committed any offenceCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

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 causes grievous hurt to A.a)A has committed an offenceb)A has not committed an offencec)B has committed an offenced)B has not committed any offenceCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Direction: In this section every question is appended with facts and principles, and multiple choice answers. You are required to read the facts carefully, then read the principles, apply the principles to the given facts and make a select one the option which is the most appropriate answer from the given choices Principles: Any act done in exercise of right of private defense shall not be an offense. The right to private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm that it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defense.Facts: Mr. ‘A’ saw an unknown man jumping the boundary wall and entering his house in the night. He hid himself in a corner carrying a sword and waiting for the person. The moment the person entered the house, he hit the person and cut his head. Whether Mr. ‘A’ committed offence of killing a man?a)Yes, because he should allow any person entering his house.b)No, he has not committed any offense.c)No, he has not committed any offense because he exercised right of private defense.d)Yes, because he exceeds right of private defense.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Direction: Given below are the statements of facts of the case. After statement of facts, legal principles are given apply the principles to the facts of the case and select the most appropriate answer from among the four alternatives.Principle Nothing is an offence, which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. Every person has a right to defend his property against any act of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass. This right of private defence of property extends to causing of death of the wrong-doer, if the person exercising the right apprehends that death or grievous hurt shall be the consequence if such right of private defence is not exercised.Facts A"s cattle was being regularly stolen and A was unable to apprehend the thief. One night, A finally manages to catch B untying his cow from the cowshed under the cover of darkness. A slowly crept up to B and slashed his neck with a sickle leading to the death of B Is A guilty of the offence of culpable homicide?a)No, A was only exercising his right of private defence of propertyb)No, B continued stealing of his cattle would have rendered his business inoperablec)Yes, A had no reasonable apprehension that A could suffer any grievous hurt if he did not kill Bd)Yes, A should have first challenged B to surrender before taking any steps to cause Bs deathCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Principle: One can protect one's person or property by using reasonable force. However, the use of force is justified only for the purpose of defense and in the process of self defence, if any harm is caused , the defendant is not liable. However there should be an eminent threat to safety or property and the force used should not be excessive.Facts: Rajesh threw a lighted firecracker aimlessly in a crowded market place. It was about to land on a sweet stall. The owner of the shop, acting in self-defense, quickly picked it up and threw it. It fell on the Geeta. What is Rajesh's liability towards Geeta?a)Rajesh is liable towards Geeta for the damage caused to her.b)Rajesh will be liable since he endangered another individual while exercising his righ of private defencec)Rajesh will be liable since he should have taken the precaution of throwing the fire cracker in a direction where there would have been no damage to another person or another's propertyd)Rajesh has acted in private defence and cannot be made liable towards GeetaCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Passage - 1The law of torts has been evolving throughout its existence. There are certain principles which are used to counter claims for compensation. These counterclaims or defences are used to evict those citizens from tortious liability who have been unfairly been implicated with wrong claims imposed on them. These defences have been formulated from time to time to keep up with the basis of imposition of tortious liability on a person.INEVITABLE ACCIDENTInevitable Accidents are, as evident from the name, events which could not have been prevented by the parties through the exercise of ordinary care, caution, and skill. An inevitable accident is one which could not be possibly prevented by the exercise of ordinary care, caution and skill and hence it does not apply to anything which either of the parties might have avoided. Sir Frederick Pollock defined an inevitable accident as an accident which is not avoidable by any precautions, a reasonable man could have expected to take.In the past cases, the defence of inevitable accident used to be very relevant in actions for trespass when the older rule was that even an innocent trespass was actionable unless the defendant could prove that the accident was caused due to it being inevitable in nature. The term "inevitable accident" is used in instances where the accidents occur by chance and in the absence of human error. Both of these are similar in terms of negligence, if it is proved by the plaintiff that there was negligence on the part of the defendant then the defendant will not be able to escape liability by using these defenses. The plea of an inevitable accident has lost its practicality in todays day and age, as it has lost its utility since the principle of absolute liability, applies even in the absence of defendants negligence and with the growth in the dimension of science the number of accidents which were considered to be inevitable is fastly diminishing.To sum it all up, an inevitable accident is an event which happens not only without the concurrence of the will of a man but in spite of all the efforts that a man may put on his part to prevent it from happening i.e. an accident which is physically unavoidable and cant be prevented by human skill or foresight.Q.X was carrying on the business of production of narcotic and psychotropic substances for which one needed to obtain a permit license from Central Bureau of Narcotics. X had applied for the license to run such a business which was awaited. The process involved use of large boilers to heat water. The boilers were imported from abroad and were best available anywhere in the world. X ensured that the boilers were used according to the instructions of the manufacturers. Due to some latent fault in manufacturing, one of the boilers burst, causing injuries to several workers. On being charged, X pleaded the defence of "accident". Decide.a)X can plead the defence of accident as the accident was caused by a latent manufacturing defect.b)X cannot plead the defence of accident as he was involved in an unlawful act.c)X can plead the defence of accident as he took necessary precaution and care while operating the boilers.d)X cannot plead the defence of accident as he must have had knowledge that the operation was inherently dangerous.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Principle: Everyone has the right to defend their life and property against criminal harm provided it is not possible to approach public authorities and more harm than that is necessary has not been caused to avert the danger.Facts: W on returning home late after work was accosted by an armed vagabond who tried to rob her purse and valuables at knife point. W raised an alarm but was unsuccessful in obtaining help. In the ensuing struggle W snatched the knife from the brigand and killed him. At the trial W-I. Can claim the right of private defence as she was defending her life and propertyII. Can claim private defence as she tried to obtain help but could not approach public authoritiesIII. Cannot claim private defence as to defend a few valuables a person cannot be killedIV. Cannot claim private defence as it was her own fault that she was coming home late at nighta)I and IIb)IIIc)III and IVd)IICorrect answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?

The law of torts has been evolving throughout its existence. There are certain principles which are used to counter claims for compensation. These counterclaims or defences are used to evict those citizens from tortious liability who have been unfairly been implicated with wrong claims imposed on them. These defences have been formulated from time to time to keep up with the basis of imposition of tortious liability on a person.INEVITABLE ACCIDENTInevitable Accidents are, as evident from the name, events which could not have been prevented by the parties through the exercise of ordinary care, caution, and skill.An inevitable accident is one which could not be possibly prevented by the exercise of ordinary care, caution and skill and hence it does not apply to anything which either of the parties might have avoided. Sir Frederick Pollock defined an inevitable accident as an accident which is not avoidable by any precautions, a reasonable man could have expected to take.In the past cases, the defence of inevitable accident used to be very relevant in actions for trespass when the older rule was that even an innocent trespass was actionable unless the defendant could prove that the accident was caused due to it being inevitable in nature.The term "inevitable accident" is used in instances where the accidents occur by chance and in the absence of human error. Both of these are similar in terms of negligence, if it is proved by the plaintiff that there was negligence on the part of the defendant then the defendant will not be able to escape liability by using these defenses.To sum it all up, an inevitable accident is an event which happens not only without the concurrence of the will of a man but in spite of all the efforts that a man may put on his part to prevent it from happening i.e. an accident which is physically unavoidable and can't be prevented by human skill or foresight.Q. X was carrying on the business of production of narcotic and psychotropic substances for which one needed to obtain a permit license from Central Bureau of Narcotics. X had applied for the license to run such a business which was awaited. The process involved use of large boilers to heat water. The boilers were imported from abroad and were best available anywhere in the world. X ensured that the boilers were used according to the instructions of the manufacturers. Due to some latent fault in manufacturing, one of the boilers burst, causing injuries to several workers. On being charged, X pleaded the defence of "accident". Decide.a)X can plead the defence of accident as the accident was caused by a latent manufacturing defect.b)X cannot plead the defence of accident as he was involved in an unlawful act.c)X can plead the defence of accident as he took necessary precaution and care while operating the boilers.d)X cannot plead the defence of accident as he must have had knowledge that the operation was inherently dangerous.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. Nothing is an offence which is done in madness.Facts: A, under the influence of madness, attempts to kill B. B to save his life kills A.a)A has committed the offence of attempt to murderb)A has committed an offence of being madc)B has committed an offenced)B has not committed an offenceCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Directions:The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.In the law of torts, if any person commits any wrongful act which causes injury to another person, he is held liable and has to pay damages or provide some other remedy which the Court determines to the victim of such an act. But in some cases even if a person suffers some loss because of the act of another person, he cannot claim damages from that person because of the operation of defences of tort. One such defence available to a defendant is the defence of volenti non-fit injuria in which the plaintiff is not entitled to damages because he consents to the act which has caused injury to him.In torts, there is a duty on every person to do acts with reasonable care in order to avoid any harm which may occur due to their failure of taking such care. This is general, but there are certain exceptions which are allowed in these cases called defences to tort. Under these defences, a defendant can escape liability, and volenti non-fit injuria is also one such defence which is available for the defendant.For the application of this defence, there are some essential elements or conditions which must be fulfilled to prevent liability. The plaintiff has the knowledge of the risk and that the plaintiff with this knowledge has voluntarily agreed to suffer the harm.Thus, whenever the plaintiff is aware of the possibility of harm which is likely to be caused by an act and when he still accepts to do that act and therefore agrees to suffer the injury, a defendant is relieved of his liability.But only having knowledge about the risk is not enough for the application of this defence, it is known as scienti non fit injuria, which means that mere knowledge does not mean consent to the risk. Thus, having knowledge is only a partial fulfillment of the conditions for the application of volenti non fit injuria.In the cases where the defendant is taking the defence, the burden of proof is on him to show that the plaintiff had full knowledge of the act and consented to the risk involved in the act and the defendant has to show that the plaintiff was also aware of the extent of risk which was involved in the act. For such a defence, the consent of the defendant is not required to be expressly given and even by his conduct, his consent can be taken. When a plaintiff gives his consent for an act, such consent should be free from any coercion, fraud or any other such means by which the free consent can be affected. In case the consent of a person is not free, the defendant cannot claim this defence to escape liability and he will be held liable for damage caused.Q.Diya, having a heart problem, goes to Akash, a surgeon, and is told that she must undergo a surgery, to which she agrees. During the surgery, Akash removes one kidney of Diya without her knowledge. Decidea)Diya cannot file a suit against Akash as she agreed for the surgery.b)Diya can file a suit against Akash as she had consented only for the surgery.c)Diya will not get any compensation under torts as it is a criminal offence.d)Either 2 or 3Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?