Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Legal Principle: Parents are not liable for wrongs committed by their children unless they provide the opportunity for such wrongful acts to be committed by their children.
Fact Situation: Sunil, a minor, takes the keys to his father’s car from the tabletop where his father keeps it, drives the car on the public road and hits a pedestrian who gets injured.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
पर्याय
Since Sunil took the car without his father’s permission, his father is not liable for Sunil’s act resulting in the accident.
Sunil’s father is liable for the conduct of Sunil resulting in the accident since he left the car keys where his son could easily take it without permission.
Accidents happen despite utmost care and hence neither Sunil nor his father is liable in the instant case.
Sunil’s father is not liable since he had kept his car locked and securely deposited its keys without negligence on his tabletop.
Advertisements
उत्तर
Sunil’s father is liable for the conduct of Sunil resulting in the accident since he left the car keys where his son could easily take it without permission.
Explanation:
There is no general duty on the parents to keep a child under constant supervision. The duty of parents is to exercise a reasonable degree of supervision and control over the child, in view of any foreseeable danger in the activities the child was involved in at the relevant time, taking into account the age of the child and the child's propensity to meddle. parents have a bigger duty to control the young one, and a correspondingly higher liability if they fail to do so. In the case presented before us two things can be observed, firstly Sunil's father left the keys unattended within the approach of his son Sunil and secondly his son Sunil took the keys and injured a pedestrian. the mere negligence on the part of father makes him liable for the conduct of his son Sunil. Hence "Sunil’s father is liable for the conduct of Sunil resulting in the accident since he left the car keys where his son could easily take it without permission." seems most appropriate.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Principle: Copyright law protects only work. 'Work' means cinematographic film but does not include performance by an actor in a cinematographic film.
Facts: Alia Bhatt acted in a movie.
The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option
Principle: When a person consented to an act to be done by another, he cannot claim any damages resulting from doing that act, provided the act done is the same for which consent is given.
Facts: 'P' submitted written consent to a surgeon 'S' for undergoing a surgical operation for removal of appendicitis. The surgeon while doing surgery also removed the gall bladder of 'A':
What Is an ECO-MARK?
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.
In most cases, a threat of violence made over the telephone cannot constitute an assault. Which of the following most accurately explains why not?
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
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 A person is not liable for every harm which comes from the act but is only liable for those harms which can be reasonably foreseen at the time of the injury.
FACTS Sumati, who was being threatened by armed robbery pulled the railway chain. The engine driver recorded the chain pulling but did not stop thinking it to be the work of mischievous passengers wishing to alight before the station. As a result, no help came to Sumati, who was robbed and injured. The suit brought by her was resisted by the railways. As a judge, you would
Principle: A Master is liable for the acts of his Servant as long as he can control the working of his servant.
A owned a taxi agency. She had hired B to drive one of her cars. On January 1, 2010, C called up A's taxi agency and asked for a car to drop him from his house to his place of work. On the way, because of the driver's negligence, the car hit a road divider and C was injured. He sued A for damages.
Define vicarious liability.
