Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Principle: Consent is a good defence for civil action in tort. But consent must include both knowledge of risk and assumption of risk, i.e, readiness to bear harm.
Facts: A lady passenger was aware that the driver of the cab, in which she opted to travel was little intoxicated. The cab met with an accident and lady got injured.
विकल्प
Lady can refuse to pay the fare as she had suffered injuries.
Lady is entitled to claim compensation as she only knew about risk and there was no assumption of risk.
Lady is not entitled to claim compensation as she had knowled ge of the risk.
Driver can take the plea that he was lightly intoxicated.
Advertisements
उत्तर
Lady is entitled to claim compensation as she only knew about risk and there was no assumption of risk.
Explanation:
i. The plaintiff knows that there is a risk.
ii. He knowingly agrees to suffer harm.
If only the first point is present, there is only knowledge of the risk, it is no defence because the maxim his volentinon fit injuria. Merely because the plaintiff knows of the harm does not imply that he assent to suffer harm. The reasonable conclusion drawn Lady is entitled to claim compensation as she only knew about the risk and there was no assumption of risk.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Principle: Nothing is an offense by reason of any harm it may cause to another person if it is done in good faith and for the benefit of that person even without that person‘s consent.
Facts: A is attacked by a Lion and Lion drags him while he is crying for help. B, a passer-by picks up A‘s gun in good faith and fires at Lion which injures A. B has never used the gun before.
The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option:
Principle: There are legal provisions to give authority to a person to use necessary force against an assailant or wrongdoer for the purpose of protecting one’s own body and property as also another’s body and property when immediate aid from the state machinery is not readily available; and in so doing he is not answerable in law for his deeds.
Facts: X, a rich man was taking his morning walk. Due to the threat of robbers in the locality, he was carrying his pistol also. In the opposite direction, another person was coming with a ferocious-looking dog. All of a sudden, the dog which was on a chain held by the owner, started barking at X. The owner of the dog called the dog to be calm. Th ey crossed each other without any problem. But suddenly, the dog started barking again from a distance. X immediately took out his pistol. By seeing the pistol the dog stopped barking and started walking with the owner. However, X shot at the dog which died instantly. The owner of the dog files a complaint against X, which in due course reached the Magistrate Court. X pleads the right of private defense. Decide
Volenti nonfit injuria’ refers to:
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. A careless person becomes liable for his negligence when he owed a duty of care to others.
2. Valenti's non-fit injury is a defence to negligence.
Factual Situation
K was a friend of L and was teaching her to drive. Prior to such an arrangement, K had sought assurances from L that appropriate Insurance had been purchased in the event of an accident. On the third day, L was executing a simple manoeuvre at slow speed when she panicked which resulted in the car crashing into a lamp-post injuring K. L was subsequently convicted of driving without due care and attention. L denied liability to pay compensation to K on the ground of volenti non-fit injuria and also that she was just learning to drive and was not in complete control of the vehicle. Decide.
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 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 sometime, 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 files a suit against the Bank
Assertion (A): In the event of a violation of any legal right (tort) the aggrieved party is entitled to recover damages as determined by the court.
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 in the wrong would not have been committed. Damages are, therefore, assessed on that basis.
X went to Y’s house and forgot his bag which contained 1 kg sweets. Y’s children consumed the sweets. Decide the liability of Y.
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer:
Legal Principles:
1. The Tort of Negligence is a legal wrong that is suffered by someone at the hands of another who fails to take proper care to avoid what a reasonable person would regard as a foreseeable risk.
2. The test of liability requires that the harm must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant’s conduct, a relationship of proximity must exist and it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.
3. Volenti non-fit injuria is a defense to action in negligence.
Facts:
A team of scientists imported a virus for the purpose of research. They carried out research on their premises into foot and mouth disease in cattle, and they were apparently responsible for the escape of some virus. As a result, there was an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the area, and the Minister of Agriculture ordered two markets to be closed. This caused some of the traders, who were two firms of auctioneers, to suffer a loss of profits on a total of six market days, from which they sought to recover. Decide whether the scientists owed a duty of care towards the traders?
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. A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would be likely to injure his neighbor.
3. The foreseeability of the type of damage is a prerequisite of liability in actions of nuisance
Facts:
Bharat Sugar Ltd. operated a sugar refinery on the bank of the river Ravi. They had a jetty from which raw sugar would be offloaded from barges and refined sugar would be taken. The sugar would be taken by larger vessels and then transferred to smaller barges to enable them to get through the shallow waters. As part of development, Bharat Sugar Ltd. wished to construct a new jetty and dredge the water to accommodate the larger vessels. At the same time, the State was constructing new ferry terminals. The design of the ferry terminals was such that it caused the siltation of the channels. After using the channels for a short while, Bharat Sugars’ larger vessels were no longer able to use them. Further dredging at the cost of ₹ 7,50,000 was required to make the channel and jetties usable by the vessels. Bharat Sugar Ltd. brought an action in nuisance to recover the cost of the extra dredging. Is the State liable?
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?
