Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option:
Principle: Negligence is actionable in law. In simple terms, negligence is the failure to take proper care over something.
Facts: A, a doctor, conducted a hysterectomy sincerely on B and left a small cotton swab inside the abdomen. As a consequence of which B developed some medical problems and had to undergo another surgery. Is A liable?
विकल्प
A is not liable as he did not foresee any consequences at the ti me of surgery.
As only a small swab was left in the abdomen, there was no negligence.
A is liable for the negligence as he failed to take proper care during the surgery
Liability for negligence does not arise here as a performed the operation sincerely.
Advertisements
उत्तर
A is liable for the negligence as he failed to take proper care during the surgery.
Explanation:
A is liable for the negligence as he failed to take proper care during the surgery. It was the duty of the doctor A to ensure the utmost safety of his patient B during the surgery.
Forgetting a cotton swab inside the abdomen caused medical problems. A doctor is liable under negligence.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Principle: There are certain acts which, though harmful, are not wrongful in law; therefore, do not give legal right to bring action in law, to the person who suffers from such acts.
Facts: 'Prakash' has a rice mill. His neighbor, Shanti, sets up another rice mill and offers a tough competition to Prakash. As a consequence, Prakash's profits fall down. He brings a suit against Shanti for damages.
Legal Principle: ‘ Audi alteram partem’ is a Latin phrase which means ‘hear the other side’. It is the principle that no person should be judged without a fair hearing.
Fact Situation: Sanjay, in Delhi, is accused of theft and brought before the Court. The magistrate discovers that Sanjay is mute.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
India became a member of the United Nations in the Year
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?
Which of the following is not an element of an intentional tort?
PRINCIPLE Where a dangerous article escapes, the owner shall be strictly liable for the harm which comes without being at fault.
FACTS Bhopal Gas Co. was in the business of manufacturing chemicals that produced a large amount of toxic residue. As per procedure, they used to store the waste in insulated boxes and hand it over to the collecting van of the municipal corporation once a week. After one such collection, the van driver drove negligently resulting in the escape and spilling of the contents of one of the waste barrels. Is Bhopal Gas Co. liable?
The question contains some basic principles and fact situations in which these basic principles have to be applied. A list of probable decisions and reasons are given.
Principles:
1. A master shall be liable for the fraudulent acts of his servants committed in the course of employment.
2. Whether an act is committed in the course of employment has to be judged in the context of the case.
3. Both master and third parties must exercise reasonable care in this regard.
Facts:
Rama Bhai was an uneducated widow and she opened a'S.B. account with Syndicate Bank with the help of her nephew by name Keshav who was at that time working as a clerk in the Bank. 'Keshav used to deposit the money of Rama Bhai from time to time' and get the entries done in the passbook. After a year or so, Keshav was dismissed from the service by the Bank. Being unaware of this fact, Rama Bhai continued to hand over her savings to him and Keshav misappropriated them. Rama Bhai realized this only when Keshav disappeared from, the scene one day and she sought compensation from the Bank.
Possible Decisions
(a) Syndicate Bank shall be liable to compensate Rama Bhai.
(b) Syndicate Bank shall not be liable to compensate Rama Bhai.
(c) Rama Bhai cannot blame others for her negligence.
Possible Reasons
(i) Keshav was not an employee of the Bank when the fraud" was committed.
(ii) The Bank was not aware of the special arrangement between Rama Bhai and Keshay.
(iii) It is the Bank's duty to take care of vulnerable customers.
(iv) Rama Bhai should have checked about Keshav in her own interest. Your decision with the reason
Principle: One has to compensate another for the injury caused due to his wrongful act. The liability to compensate is reduced to the extent the latter has contributed to the injury through his own negligence, This is the underlying principle of contributory negligence.
Facts: Veerappa owns a farm at a distance of half a furlong from the railway track. He stored in his land the stacks of dried up straw after the cultivation as is normal in farming. One day when the train was passing through the track, the driver was negligently operating the locomotive by allowing it to emit large quantities of spark. The high wind, normal in open fields, carried the sparks to the stacks stored by Veerappa and the stacks caught fire thereby causing extensive damage. Veerappa filed a suit against the Railways claiming damages. The Railways while acknowledging liability alleged contributory negligence on the part of Veerappa.
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: Master is liable for the wrongful acts committed by his servant; provided the acts are committed during the course of employment. However, the master is not liable if the wrongful act committed by his servant has no connection, whatsoever, with the servant's contract of employment.
Facts: D' is a driver employed by 'M', who is the owner of a company. During lunchtime, 'D' goes to a closeby tea shop to have a cup of tea. There he ('D') picks up a fight with the tea shop owner ('T'), which resulted in some damage to his shop. 'T' wants to sue' for claiming compensation for the damage caused by the fight. Which of the following derivations is correct?
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:
