Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
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?
पर्याय
Mistry is not liable for the tort of negligence since Saini was not injured though he fell down.
Mistry is liable for the tort of negligence since Saini fell down due to the presence of the ladder.
Mistry is not liable for the tort of negligence since Saini was speeding on the road.
Mistry is liable for the tort of negligence since he was careless in leaving the ladder on the road.
Advertisements
उत्तर
Mistry is liable for the tort of negligence since Saini fell down due to the presence of the ladder.
Explanation:
Negligent torts are not deliberate actions, but instead, present when an individual or entity fails to act as a reasonable person to someone whom he or she owes a duty to. The negligent action found in this particular tort leads to a personal injury or monetary damages. Thus the two major essentials of tort are (a) negligence and (b) damage or injury.
Facts of the case presented before us mention that Saini who was riding a motorcycle fell down due to Mistry's negligence even though he did not get injured, DAMAGE was caused to his motorcycle, clothes, time, etc. Thus we can easily conclude that "Mistry is liable for the tort of negligence since Saini fell down due to the presence of the ladder." is the most appropriate statement.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Principle: The sale of liquor is illegal. All agreements relating to prohibited items do not exist in the eyes of law.
Facts: 'A‘ entered into an agreement with 'B‘ for the sale of liquor. 'A‘ failed to supply the agreed quantity of liquor to B.
The law relating to prisoners of war has been codified by
Which of the following could not constitute battery if done with the requisite intent?
Which of the following is an example of trespass?
Unliquidated damage stands for
PRINCIPLE A principal is liable for such acts as committed in the course of an agency but is not liable for such acts as committed outside the course of the agency.
FACTS ABC, a partnership between A, B and C maintained a bank account with XYZ. As per the standing arrangement with the bank, signatures of at least two partners were required for the withdrawal of the money from the partnership account. B forged the signatures of A, which were exactly alike and withdrew a large amount of money and disappeared. In a suit brought by A and C
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.
Select the statement that could be said to be most direct inference from specified facts:
Principle: The standard to determine whether a person has been guilty of negligence is the standard of care which, in the given circumstances, a reasonable man could have foreseen.
Facts: The Agricultural University constructed 200 houses for its employees in its premises. Two huge bore wells were sunk and motors were installed. They did not cover the pump rooms properly. A child, 6 years old, from one of the quarters, was playing near the pumphouse. On hearing the noise of the pump, she was curious to see the motor. She touched the motor that was not covered properly and three of her fingers were cut.
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:
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: The master/principal is liable for all acts done by his duly appointed servant/agent for all acts done by him lawfully in the course of his employment.
Factual situation: A, B, C and D carried on a business in partnership. While making a deal with another company, B bribed the clerk there. Is the partnership firm vicariously liable? DECISION:
