Advertisements
Advertisements
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.
पर्याय
X is not guilty of an offence as the accident has occurred on a lonely road
X is not guilty because there was no intention to kill the deceased
X is guilty of an offence death by rash or negligent act
X is not guilty because he was also injured in the accident
Advertisements
उत्तर
X is guilty of an offense death by rash or negligent act
Explanation:
X is guilty of an offence of death by rash or negligent act. The principle states that the death caused by rash or negligent act of a person is an offence. Driving at a high speed is a rash and negligent act because even if the road is lonely there is a possibility of someone suddenly crossing the road.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Mark the best option:
Facts: Vir, a window cleaner was hired to clean the windows of Palam club. One of the windows was defective and so when it was being cleaned, it ran down quickly and injured the hand of the window cleaner and caused injuries. Vir used Palam club for damages Decide.
Principle: The occupier can expect that a person in the exercise of his calling will appreciate and guard against risks incidental to his calling and he need not be, therefore, warned about them.
The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option
Principle: A person is said to do a thing fraudulently, if he does that thing with intent to defraud, but not otherwise.
Facts: 'A' occasionally hands over his ATM card to 'B' to withdraw money for 'A'. On one occasion 'B' without the knowledge of 'A', uses 'A's ATM card to find out the balance in 'A's account, but does not withdraw any money.
Legal Principle: A product cannot be sold in shops to consumers after its date of expiry.
Fact Situation: Lata, while shopping, notices that the milk packets on the shelves are due for expiry on that day. She objects to this to the shopkeeper, saying that since she was there to buy milk for the next day, keeping the milk on its date of expiry was against the law.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
Legal Principle: A person who keeps hazardous substances in his premises, is responsible for the fault if that substance escapes in any manner and causes damage.
Facts: A, an industrialist stored 1000 litres of liquid ammonia in a tank in his premises for his industrial use. There was a leakage from the tank due to which there was ammonia vapour in the surroundings. Many workers in other industries, as well as his own industry and some members from the public, suffered serious health hazards. Examine the liability of A, if any.
Which of the following could not constitute battery if done with the requisite intent?
Torts is a ________
Defamation means
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
Define vicarious liability.
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer:
Legal Principles:
1. Private nuisance is a continuous, unlawful, and indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over or in connection with it.
2. A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would be likely to injure his neighbor.
3. The foreseeability of the type of damage is a prerequisite of liability in actions of nuisance
Facts:
Bharat Sugar Ltd. operated a sugar refinery on the bank of the river Ravi. They had a jetty from which raw sugar would be offloaded from barges and refined sugar would be taken. The sugar would be taken by larger vessels and then transferred to smaller barges to enable them to get through the shallow waters. As part of development, Bharat Sugar Ltd. wished to construct a new jetty and dredge the water to accommodate the larger vessels. At the same time, the State was constructing new ferry terminals. The design of the ferry terminals was such that it caused the siltation of the channels. After using the channels for a short while, Bharat Sugars’ larger vessels were no longer able to use them. Further dredging at the cost of ₹ 7,50,000 was required to make the channel and jetties usable by the vessels. Bharat Sugar Ltd. brought an action in nuisance to recover the cost of the extra dredging. Is the State liable?
