मराठी

Legal Principle: a Person is Liable to Compensate Others for Harm Caused by the Escape of Any Inherently Dangerous Material that He Keeps on His Land. - Mathematics

Advertisements
Advertisements

प्रश्न

Legal Principle: A person is liable to compensate others for harm caused by the escape of any inherently dangerous material that he keeps on his land.

Fact Situation: Ankit lights a bonfire in his courtyard to warm himself up during a cold winter evening. A strong wind suddenly blows some sparks from the fire, on to his neighbour’s house which catches fire and gets completely destroyed.

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

पर्याय

  • Ankit’s neighbour is liable to Ankit for the distress caused by keeping a house that catches fire so quickly.

  • Ankit is not liable because nobody could foresee that the sudden wind will blow the sparks to cause a fire.

  • Ankit’s neighbour cannot make Ankit liable for the loss of his house since it was an accidental fire that destroyed it.

  • Ankit is liable to compensate because the fire escaped from his premises to burn down his neighbour’s house.

MCQ
Advertisements

उत्तर

Ankit is liable to compensate because the fire escaped from his premises to burn down his neighbor’s house.

Explanation:

The liability cast on such person who is holding or keeping dangerous article in his home is known, in law, as strict liability, for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm is caused on anyone on account of the escape of such dangerous thing, the holder or keeper is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate those who are injured or incurred losses.  Thus Ankit is liable to compensate because the fire escaped from his premises to burn down his neighbor's house is the correct answer.

shaalaa.com
Law of Torts (Entrance Exams)
  या प्रश्नात किंवा उत्तरात काही त्रुटी आहे का?
2017-2018 (May) Set 1

संबंधित प्रश्‍न

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: Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. Nothing is an offence which is done in madness.

Facts: A, under the influence of madness, attempts to kill B. B to save his life kills A.  


Principle: The existence of all the alleged facts is relevant whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places.

Facts: A, a citizen of England, is accused of committing the murder of B in India by taking part in a conspiracy hatched in England. 


Mark the best option:
Facts: Kumar had a ferocious dog which used to guard his house. One evening when Mohan was returning home after illegally purchasing an unlicensed gun, he happened to pass Kumar’s house, the latter’s dog ran out and bit Mohan’s trouser and on Mohan's turning around and raising his gun the dog ran away. Mohan shot the dog as it was running into the house. Kumar’sdog died after two days because of the gunshot and he sued Mohan for compensation.
Principle:

  1. Every person has a right to defend his own person, property or possession against unlawful harm.
  2. The person may use reasonable force in order to protect his person, property or possession.
  3. However, the force employed should be proportionate to the apprehended danger.

Legal Principle: Negligence is the absence of care by one party which results in some damage to another. Damage is an essential ingredient to constitute a tort of negligence.

Fact Situation: Mistry left his ladder on the public road while unloading it from a truck when he went to open the shutters of his shop. Saini who was riding his motorcycle had to swerve hard to avoid hitting the ladder as he came with speed on the road. Saini fell down but was miraculously not injured.

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


Legal Principle: One of the principles of ‘Natural Justice’ states that, “No person shall be a judge in his own cause”.

Facts: A, a driver of B, a Branch Manager of ABC Bank was caught, suspecting theft, in the bank premises. The Bank management instituted an enquiry and made B the enquiry officer.

Which of the following statements is correct?


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


Why is defamation a tort?


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: An unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land or some right over, or in connection with it, is a nuisance in law of tort.

Facts: During the scarcity of onions, long queues were made outside the defendant's shop who has a license to sell fruits and vegetables used to sell only 1 kg of onion per ration card. The queues extended on to the highway and also caused some obstruction to the neighboring shops. The neighboring shopkeepers filed a suit for nuisance against the defendant.
Which one of the following decisions will be correct in this suit?


PRINCIPLE Vis major or an act of God entails a sudden manoeuvre by elements of nature over which we have no control.

FACTS In a bus accident where the driver died of a sudden cardiac arrest, the legal heirs of the deceased brought a suit against the bus company for not making the driver undergo the mandatory health and fitness test before giving employment. The bus company claims a defence of 'vis major'. The defence of vis major in this case shall


Rules:

A. A person is an employee of another if the mode and the manner in which he or she carries out his work is subject to control and supervision of the latter.
B. An employer is required to provide compensation to his or her employees for any injury caused by an accident arising in the course of employment. The words ‘in the course of the employment’ mean in the course of the work which the employee is contracted to do and which is incidental to it.

Facts:

Messers. Zafar Abidi and Co. (Company) manufactures bidis with the help of persons known as ‘pattadrs’. The pattadars are supplied tobacco and leaves by the Company and are required to roll them into bidis and bring the bidis back to the Company. The pattadars are free to roll the bidis either in the factory or anywhere else they prefer. They are not bound to attend the factory for any fixed number of bidis. The Company verifies whether the bidis adhere to the specified instructions or not pays the pattadars on the basis of the number of bids that are found to be of right quality. Aashish Mathew is one of the pattadars of the Company. He was hit by a car just outside the precinct of the factory while he was heading to have lunch in a nearby food-stall. Aashish Mathew has applied for compensation from the Company.

If the pattadars were compulsorily required to work in the factory for a minimum number of hours every day, then the Company would have been liable to pay compensation to Aashish Mathew if the latter:


Share
Notifications

Englishहिंदीमराठी


      Forgot password?
Use app×