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: Use of criminal force intentionally knowing that it would cause or is likely to cause injury or annoyance to the person against whom force is used, is an offense.
Facts: X, a renowned social worker who had launched a movement for the liberation of women, pull up a Muslim women‘s veil in public in good faith without her consent causing annoyance to her.
Principle: Law does not penalise for wrongs which are of trivial nature.
Facts: In the course of a discussion, 'A' threw a file of papers at the table which touched the hands of 'B'.
The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option:
Principle: Negligence is actionable in law. In simple terms, negligence is the failure to take proper care over something.
Facts: A, a doctor, conducted a hysterectomy sincerely on B and left a small cotton swab inside the abdomen. As a consequence of which B developed some medical problems and had to undergo another surgery. Is A liable?
Development of the law of tort has taken through:
India became a member of the United Nations in the Year
Which of the following is not a reason for the general lack of liability for omissions in English law?
Mark the best option:
Principles:
- Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threats, commits criminal intimidation.
- A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interesting, is covered within the above provision.
Facts: Monty is a tenant in the Sharmas' house, living on the top floor while the Sharmas occupy the ground floor. However, he is always irregular in paying the rent. The Sharmas' are tired of asking him to pay on time and his manners have deteriorated over time. What started as mere excuses snowballed into name-calling, until one day, Monty threatened to come with his friends and vandalize the Sharmas' house, if they complained or took action against him.
Will Monty be guilty of criminal intimidation?
Mark the best option:
Principles:
- Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threats, commits criminal intimidation.
- A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interesting, is covered within the above provision.
Facts: Monty is a tenant in the Sharmas' house, living on the top floor while the Sharmas occupy the ground floor. However, he is always irregular in paying the rent. The Sharmas' are tired of asking him to pay on time and his manners have deteriorated over time. What started as mere excuses snowballed into name-calling, until one day, Monty threatened to come with his friends and vandalize the Sharmas' house, if they complained or took action against him.
Post the threat issued by Monty, the Sharmas' called the welfare officer of their residential colony, Budhdeb to discuss the matter with him. Monty threatened Budhdeb saying that he would expose his deceased father's illegal activities and release his personal numbers etc. on the internet to trouble Budhdeb.
Against whom is Monty guilty of criminal intimidation?
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.
Legal Principle: Master/Principal is vicariously liable for the tort committed by a servant/agent, in the performance of his duties as a servant/agent.
Factual situation: The plaintiff a bullion merchant was arrested by the police on a charge of purchasing stolen goods. Some of the gold and silver ornaments were seized for the plaintiff and were kept in the police station custody. The duty constable appropriated the gold ornaments and escaped to a foreign country. The plaintiff after being acquitted brought an action against the State for the compensation. In this case, compensation is DECISION:
