हिंदी

Principles: a Servant is One Who is Employed to Do Some Work for His Employer (Master). He is Engaged Under a Contract of Service.

Advertisements
Advertisements

प्रश्न

Principles: A servant is one who is employed to do some work for his employer (master). He is engaged under a contract of service. He works directly under the control and directions of his master. · In general, the master is vicariously liable for those torts (wrongful acts) of his servant which are done by the servant in the course of his employment.

Facts: 'M' appointed 'D' exclusively for the purpose of driving his tourist vehicle. 'M' also appointed 'C' exclusively for the purpose of performing the work of a conductor for the tourist vehicle. During one trip, at the end of the journey, 'C', while 'D' was not on the driver's seat, and apparently for the purpose of turning the vehicle in the right direction for the next journey, drove it through the street at high speed, and negligently injured 'P'.

विकल्प

  • 'M' could not be made liable for the act of 'C', as his (C's) act of driving the vehicle was not in the course of his employment.

  • 'M' could be made liable for the act of 'C', as his (C's) act of driving the vehicle was within his scope of employment.

  • 'M' could be made liable for the act of 'C', as 'C' was employed under a contract of service.

  • 'M' is not liable as he was not present at the time of accident.

MCQ
Advertisements

उत्तर

'M' could not be made liable for the act of 'C', as his (C's) act of driving the vehicle was not in the course of his employment.

Explanation:

The reasonable conclusion drawn is that M's liability arises only when the wrongdoer is his servant and the servant while doing the wrongful act is in the course of the employment. In the  Present reasonable conclusion is M could not be made liable for the act of C, as C's act of driving the vehicle was not in the course of the employment.   

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

संबंधित प्रश्न

Principle: Acceptance of the proposal must be the exact mirror image of the proposal.

Facts: 'A‘ made a proposal to 'B‘ to sell a chair for Rs. 500. 'B‘ is desirous of buying the said chair for Rs. 400.  


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.


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

Principle: When a person interferes with peaceful possession of another person without the permission of the person in possession of those premises, commits trespass to land.

Facts: 'T' just walked over the land of 'P' to reach his house as it was a short cut. 'P' had displayed a notice that it is not a thoroughfare. 'P' did not cause any damage to the land.


Consists of legal proposition(s)/  principle(s) (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. Such principles may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this Section. In other words, in answering these questions, you must not rely on any principle except the principles that are given herein below for every question.  
Further, you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your interest in the study of law, research aptitude, and problem-solving ability, even if the 'most reasonable conclusion' arrived at may be absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the objective of this section to test your knowledge of the law.  
Therefore, to answer a question, the principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option. 

Principle: When a person makes such a statement that lowers another person's reputation in the estimation of other persons, it is liable for committing defamation.

Facts: 'A' writes a letter to 'B' in which he uses abusive language against 'B' and also states that 'B' is a dishonest person. 'A' put the letter in a sealed envelope and delivered it to 'B'.


Which of the following is not an objective of the law of tort?


PRINCIPLE Where the plaintiff himself is in fault, the defendant shall not be answerable for the harm brought on by the plaintiff's own actions.

FACTS Jimmy had put up a board in his house warning all trespassers of ‘Beware of Dogs’. Jimmy arrived home using a cab and since he did not have the wallet asked the driver to stay outside. He received a long-distance phone call and spoke for 20 straight minutes. The cab driver outside was getting very restless and was ringing the bell which turned out to be broken. Left with no other alternative the driver came in only to be bitten black and blue by Jimmy's Rottweiler. In a suit brought by the cab driver 


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 person is liable for negligence if he fails to take care of his neighbour's interest.
2. A neighbour is anyone whose interests should have been foreseeable by a reasonable man while carrying on his activities.

Facts:

A cricket match was going on in a closed-door stadium. A cricket fan who could not get into the stadium was watching the game by climbing up a nearby tree and sitting there. The cricket ball in the course of the game went out of the stadium and hit this person and injured him. He filed a suit against the organizers.

Possible Decisions

(a) The organizers are liable to compensate the injured person.
(b) The organizers are not liable to compensate the injured person'
(c) The injured person should have avoided the place where he might be hit by the cricket ball.

Possible Reasons

(i) The organizers are responsible for the people inside the stadium.
(ii) The organizers could not have foreseen somebody watching the game by climbing up a tree.
(iii) A person crazy about something must pay the price for that.
(iv) The organizers shall be liable to everybody likely to watch the game. Your decision with the reason.


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:

Defamation means publication of a false and derogatory statement about another person without lawful justification.

Factual situation: A writes a defamatory letter to B containing defamatory remarks in reference of B in Urdu language. A is aware that B does not know Urdu. B goes C who knows Urdu and the letter is read over by C to him. B sues A for defamation. DECISION:


Assertion (A): All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish or administer educational institutions of their choice.  
Reason (R): Institutions established by the minorities are not entitled to governmental aid and government is not under an obligation to give aid.


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?


Share
Notifications

Englishहिंदीमराठी


      Forgot password?
Use app×