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: Death caused by a rash or negligent act of a person is an offence.
Facts: X was driving his SUV car on a lonely road leading to a forest at 160 km per hour. Suddenly, someone appears from the forest on the road and in the resultant accident, the car hits the commuter causing his death.
Directions: Read the statement and on the basis of that, choose the most appropriate course of action(s) given below the statement.
Statement: Most of those who study in premier Medical colleges in India migrate to developed nations for better prospects in their professional pursuits.
Courses of Action:
I. All the students joining these colleges should be asked to sign a bond at the time of admission to the effect that they will remain in India at least for ten years after they complete their medical education.
II. All those students who desire to settle in the developed nations should be asked to pay the entire cost of their education which the government subsidised.
If a person is enjoying the benefits of a lawful no gratuitous act of another, then he/she:
Alexander and Alexandra have consensual sex. Alexander knows that he has the sexually transmitted disease genital herpes but he does not tell Alexandra. She later contracts herpes. Which of the following most accurately states the likely outcome if Alexandra sues Alexander in the tort of battery?
In order to establish the tort of assault, what type of apprehension must the plaintiff prove that he or she had as a result of the defendant’s conduct?
According to SEBI norms, a person found guilty of indulging in unfair trade practices shall be liable to a penalty of
- Rs. 25 crore
- Three times the amount of profits made out of such practices, .....
The correct answer is :
Torts is a ________
LEGAL PRINCIPLE An occupier is not normally liable to a trespasser except in respect of a wilful act intended to cause him harm or done with reckless disregard.
FACTUAL SITUATION Tony, a Richman, had kept a ferocious dog to guard his house. He strictly instructed all his servants not to go near the dog. Further, a special handler was hired to take care of the dog. Visitors were warned by a prominent warning signboard about this dog.
One day, a 13 years old boy playing in the neighbourhood, running after his ball got into the house. The dog attacked him and kill him, Tony was sued for damages.
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: Master is liable for the wrongful acts committed by his servant; provided the acts are committed during the course of employment. However, the master is not liable if the wrongful act committed by his servant has no connection, whatsoever, with the servant's contract of employment.
Facts: D' is a driver employed by 'M', who is the owner of a company. During lunchtime, 'D' goes to a closeby tea shop to have a cup of tea. There he ('D') picks up a fight with the tea shop owner ('T'), which resulted in some damage to his shop. 'T' wants to sue' for claiming compensation for the damage caused by the fight. Which of the following derivations is correct?
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: The owner of immovable property is entitled to the column of airspace above the surface. However, the owner's right to air and space above his land is restricted to such height as is necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of his land and the structures on it.
Factual Situation: Galaxy Cable TV Network Company is providing cable connections to their customers. One of the cables passes over the house of Mr. Vasanth Bhat., He is not a customer of the Network Company. The cable is neither attached to his house nor to any projection thereof.
It is at a distance of 20 ft above the terrace of Mr. Bhat's two-storied house. Because of the cable, Mr. Bhat's son Sachin is unable to fly a kite from the terrace. Mr. Bhat requested the Network Company to change the position of the cable. But the company did not bother to change it. One evening, Mr. Bhat out the cable and cleared the airspace above his house. The Network Company suffered a loss of about ₹ 1000. They bring legal action against Mr. Bhat for recovery of loss suffered. DECISION:
