Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
The question consists of two statements, one labelled as principle and other as Fact. You are to exa.mine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.
PRINCIPLE: Everybody is under a legal obligation to take reasonable care to avoid an act or omission which he can foresee would injure his neighbor. The neighbor for this purpose is any person whom he should have in his mind as likely t0 be affected by his act.
FACT: Krishnan. while driving a car at high speed on a crowded road, knocked down a cyclist. The cyclist died on the spot with a lot of blood spilling around, Lakshmi, a pregnant "NOman passing by, suffered from a nervous shock, leading to abortion. Lakshmi filed a suit against Krishnan claiming damages.
पर्याय
Krishna will be liable. because he owed a duty of reasonable care to everybody on the road including Lakshmi
Krishna will not be liable, because he could not have foreseen Lakshmi suffering from nervous shock as a result of his act.
Krishna will be liable to Lakshmi because he failed to drive carefully
None of the above
Advertisements
उत्तर
Krishna will not be liable, because he could not have foreseen Lakshmi suffering from nervous shock as a result of his act.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Principle: When, at the desire one person, any other person has done or abstained from doing something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise.
Facts: X, the uncle of Y, made a promise to pay him an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as a reward if Y quits smoking and drinking within one year. Y quit smoking and drinking within six months.
The question consists of legal propositions/principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Such principles may or may not be true in the real sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true. In other words, in answering the following question, you must not rely on any principles except the principle that is given hereinbelow for the question. Further, you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your interest in the study of law, research aptitude, and problem-solving ability.
Principle: A person is said to be of sound mind for the purpose of making a contract if, at the time, when he makes it, he is capable of understanding it and of forming a rational judgment as to its effect upon his interest.
Facts: X, who is usually of sound mind but occasionally of unsound mind enters into a contract with Y when he (X) is of unsound mind. Y came to know about this fact afterward and now wants to file a suit against X.
The question consists of two statements, one labelled as principle and other as Fact. You are to exa.mine the principle and apply it to the given facts carefully and select the best option.
Principle: A master is liable for the acts committed by his servant in the course of employment.
Fact: Sanjay is a driver working in Brookebond and co. One day, the manager asked him to drop a customer at the airport and get back at the earliest. on hiS way back from the airport, he happened 10 see his fian~ Ruhina waiting for a bus to go home. He offered to drop her at home, which happened to be close to his office. She got into the car and soon thereafter, the car somersaulted due to the negligence or Sanjay. Ruhina was thrown out of the car and suffered multiple in Juries. She seeks compensation from Brookebond and Co.
Choose the most appropriate option:
'persona non grata' means-
Choose the most appropriate option:
'Audi alteram partem' means
Legal phrase is followed by four meanings. Choose the most appropriate option:
Faux pas
Mark the best option:
Caveat emptor means –
Trade Marks Act in India enacted in
The payment of wages Act is applicable to _________
Fill in the blanks: Choose the pair of words which complete the sentence to make logical sense.
The _____________ Legislative assembly on 31st March 2015 passed a controversial Anti-Terrorism Law. Earlier, the passed bill was rejected two times by the then ____________ in 2004 and 2008
