हिंदी

Principle: Law Does Not Penalise for Wrongs Which Are of Trivial Nature.

Advertisements
Advertisements

प्रश्न

Principle: Law does not penalise for wrongs which are of trivial nature.

Facts: In the course of a discussion, 'A' threw a file of papers at the table which touched the hands of 'B'.

विकल्प

  • 'A' is liable for insulting 'B'.

  • 'A' is not liable for his act, as it was of trivial nature.

  • 'A' is liable for his act, as the file touched 'B's hand.

  • 'A' is liable for his act, as it assaulted 'B'.

MCQ
Advertisements

उत्तर

'A' is not liable for his act, as it was of trivial nature.

Explanation:

According to the Section 95 of the Indian Penal  Code nothing is an offense by reason that it causes,  or that it is intended to cause, or that it is known to be likely to cause, any harm if that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm. The reasonable conclusion drawn A is not liable for his act, as it was of trivial nature.    

shaalaa.com
Law of Torts (Entrance Exams)
  क्या इस प्रश्न या उत्तर में कोई त्रुटि है?
2015-2016 (May) Set 1

संबंधित प्रश्न

The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option:

Principle: When a person falsifies something with the intent to deceive another person or entity is forgery and is a criminal act. Changing or adding the signature on a document, deleting it, using or possessing false writing is also considered forgery. In the case of writing to fall under the definition, the material included must have been fabricated or altered significantly in order to represent something it is actually not.

Facts: John was a publisher of ancient books and papers. In one of his books on the World Wars, he gave photograph of some letters written by famous historic personalities. A researcher in history noted that in the pictures of some of the letters printed in the book, John had added some words or sentences in his own handwriting to give completeness to the sentences, so that the readers will get a clear picture of the writer’s intention. The researcher challenges the originality of those pictures and claims that the book containing the forged letters should be banned. Examine the validity of the researcher’s demand.


In order to establish the tort of assault, what type of apprehension must the plaintiff prove that he or she had as a result of the defendant’s conduct?


The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress is a more recent development than the traditional torts of trespass to the person. To which of those torts is it most closely related?


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 person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is to defame that person.

FACTS In a community, there is a custom of stealing shoes of the 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.


LEGAL PRINCIPLE A master will be liable for the wrongful acts of his servants in the course of employment.

FACTUAL SITUATION Maria was an old widow who opened an account with the Indian Overseas Bank, whereby she would deposit ₹5 every day in the bank. Stephen was her neighbour, who used to collect the amount and deposit them in the bank. Stephen would get a small commission from the bank for the money deposited. One day, it was discovered that Stephen who had not deposited the money for more than three months had vanished with the amount. Maria filed a suit against the Bank. 


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 


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, a poor man, is in dire need of money to pay off his money lenders. An approaches Z, a  doctor, to operate on him to remove one of his kidneys so that he can donate it to needy people and earn money. The doctor explains to him the risks and thereafter proceeds to remove his kidney. In the process, some complication develops and A develops an abdominal tumor. Is Z 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. 

Principle: Everybody is under a legal obligation to take reasonable care to avoid act or omission which he can foresee would injure his neighbour. The neighbor for this purpose is any person whom he should have in his mind as likely to be affected by his actions. 

Factual Situation: Ram, while rushing to board a moving train, pushed Shyam, who was walking along with a heavy package, containing firecrackers. As a result, the package slipped from his hand, and crackers exploded injuring a boy standing close by. A suit was filed against Ram, by the boy,  claiming damages. DECISION


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?


Share
Notifications

Englishहिंदीमराठी


      Forgot password?
Use app×