हिंदी

Principle: Nothing is an Offence 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 - Mathematics

Advertisements
Advertisements

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. 

विकल्प

  • B is liable for the injury because he knew that he can injure A as he has never used any gun before 

  • B is not liable as he has done the act in good faith 

  • B is liable because he has not taken A‘s consent before firing 

  • B is liable because he has used A‘s gun without his consent 

MCQ
Advertisements

उत्तर

B is not liable as he has done the act in good faith 

Explanation:

The principle states that if a person has done some action in good faith for the benefit of another person even without his consent and if his action does some harm to that person, his action is not an offense. In this case, B used the gun in good faith to save A.

shaalaa.com
Law of Torts (Entrance Exams)
  क्या इस प्रश्न या उत्तर में कोई त्रुटि है?
2018-2019 (May) Set 1

संबंधित प्रश्न

Legal Principle: Nuisance is the unlawful interference with a person’s enjoyment of his land or some rights over or in connection with it.

Fact Situation: Ashok, in his nineties, is hard of hearing and plays the radio very loudly throughout the day and on a daily basis. Raju, his neighbor, complained that he cannot listen to his favorite TV show in his home due to the radio of Ashok.

Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?


What kind of contact must the plaintiff prove as an element of the tort of battery?


Mark the best option:
Principles: Qui facit per alium facit per se, " he who does things through others does it himself"
Facts: Nisha owner of a car asked her friend Saurabh to take her car and drive the same to her office. As he car near her office, it hit a pedestrian Srikant, who was injured seriously. Srikant files a case against Nisha.
Decide Nisha's liability.


This tort occurs most often in society.


PRINCIPLES

I. A master is liable for the wrongful acts of his servant.
II. A person can be called a servant only if there is a relation of employment and he acts under the order and on behalf of his master.

FACTS

X bank launched a saving scheme for poor sections of the society and the customer can deposit ₹10 per day. Y, an unemployed youth, collected money from several customers, and on behalf of them deposited the money at the bank every day. The bank gave to Y a small commission. After some time, Y disappeared without depositing the money given by the customers. The customers bring a suit alleging that the bank is liable. Decide 


LEGAL PRINCIPLE 'Consent' defined as - Two or more persons are said to consent when they agree upon the same thing in the same sense.

What does 'consent' include?


PRINCIPLE A person is entitled to protect his property by using lawful means.

FACTS Ramlal is growing valuable vegetables and fruits on his farm and he has fenced the farm to prevent the cattle from entering into it. In addition, he has kept a ferocious dog to chase away intruding urchins and catties. Some children were playing in a nearby playground and the ball slipped into the farm. A boy running after the ball came near the fence and shouted for the ball. But when there was no response, he managed to creep into the farm to get the ball. The dog which was surreptitiously waiting attacked the boy and badly mauled him. The boy's parents filed a suit against Ramlal.


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: Whoever, unlawfully or negligently does any act which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to he, likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be guilty of a negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life.

Facts: 'K', a person, knowing that he is suffering from Cholera, travels by a train without informing the railway officers of his condition.


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


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×