Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Principle: An employer is liable for an injury caused by an employee in the course of employment.
Facts: 'A‘ and 'B‘ were working in a factory as unskilled laborers. 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 instantaneously.
विकल्प
The employer will be liable
The employer will not be liable
A will be liable
Both employer and A will be liable
Advertisements
उत्तर
The employer will be liable
Explanation:
In this case, the employer is liable for the injury caused. It does not matter whether or not he is at fault or whether he is the direct cause of injury. Even if the injury is caused to an employee due to the negligence of another employee, the employer is liable because the principle clearly states so. The principle says, “An employer is liable for an injury caused to an employee in the course of the employment.”
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Principle: Whoever by words publishes any imputation concerning any person is said to defame that person.
Facts: During a marriage ceremony, A circulated a pamphlet saying the sister of the bride 'S‘ is a thief, she has stolen the shoes of the bridegroom.
Legal Principle: A person who keeps hazardous substances in his premises, is responsible for the fault if that substance escapes in any manner and causes damage.
Facts: A, an industrialist stored 1000 litres of liquid ammonia in a tank in his premises for his industrial use. There was a leakage from the tank due to which there was ammonia vapour in the surroundings. Many workers in other industries, as well as his own industry and some members from the public, suffered serious health hazards. Examine the liability of A, if any.
Which of the following is not a reason for the general lack of liability for omissions in English law?
Which of the following is an example of trespass?
Principle: A person who commits an unlawful act towards another which can be imputed to him, must repair the damage which the other person suffers as a consequence thereof.
Facts: Mr. Rajender Singh was riding his scooter on the right side of the road which is illegal as per the Traffic Rules. Mr. Rajesh Chawla was driving his car in the opposite direction. The two vehicles collided and resulted in loss of Rs. 50,000/- to Mr. Rajender Singh. This includes his medical expenses and damage to the scooter. In this accident, there is no fault on the part of Mr. Rajesh Chawla.
Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principles:
1. Master/ Principal is vicariously liable for the tort committed by a servant/ agent, in the performance of his duties as a servant/ agent.
2. Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do or doing something which a prudent or reasonable man would not do.
Factual situation: A patient is brought to a hospital maintained by B. The patient is to be operated upon, As a result of faulty oxygen supply, the patient dies on the operation theatre table, then DECISION:
Given below is a Statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE:
1. An act done by the consent of a person above 18 years is not an offense; provide the offender did not intend to cause death or grievous hurt.
2. Mere pecuniary benefit is not a thing done for a person's benefit'.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A is in a house which is on fire, with Z, a child. People below hold out a blanket. A drops the child from the housetop, knowing it to be likely that the fall may kill the child but intending to save him from the fire. Unfortunately, the child is killed is guilty? DECISION:
Given below is a statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal principle: A statement is defamatory in nature if it is injurious to a person’s reputation and if the statement has been published.
Factual situation: Rudra had been dating a girl named Kiara for three weeks. But he had introduced himself to her as Ricky Thakur (who is one of Rudra’s friends) and he continued to be Ricky for the rest of their relationship. But ultimately the relationship ended badly and Kiara being upset and angry at Rudra started a website named ‘rickythakur-is-a-jerk.com’. She created this website so as to warn other girls about ‘Ricky Thakur’. The real Ricky Thakur files a suit for defamation. Decide. DECISION:
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer:
Legal Principles:
1. Vicarious liability is when employers are held liable for the torts of their employees that are committed during the course of employment.
2. A servant is a person subject to the command of his master as to the manner in which he shall do his work. The question of whether a person is an employee depends upon the degree of control which the ‘employer’ exercises over the worker.
Facts:
Raja is a travel agent and possessed certain houses, which had an internal communication throughout, and which were used for the purposes of his business. Ramesh looked after the houses and lived in them for this purpose, but he was also a clerk in the Raja’s pay at a set annual salary. He lived in the houses with his wife, a child, and a servant. The case concerned the payment of inhabited house duty. There was a statutory exemption for premises which were occupied by a "servant”or person occupying the premises “for the protection thereof. Raja was claiming the exemption from tax liability by claiming that Ramesh was the servant. Decide whether Ramesh was a servant or an independent contractor?
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer:
Legal Principles:
1. Private nuisance is a continuous, unlawful and indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over or in connection with it.
2. The person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it in at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.
3. Generally, nuisances cannot be justified on the ground of necessity. pecuniary interest, convenience, or economic advantage to a defendant.
Facts:
Dr. Hemant had for 18 years operated a clinic and hospital for the treatment of ENT. Dr. Karan operated a renal clinic in which patients receive haemo-dialysis on the floor above Dr. Hemant’s clinic. Karan was found liable for obnoxious fumes emitting from the clinic which escaped downwards into Dr. Hemant’s clinic. Hemant, his staff and patients were found to have suffered substantial damage ranging from skin diseases, red and swollen eyes, headaches, lethargy and breathing difficulties. Decide whether Karan is liable?
