Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Principle: Everyone has the right of private defense to defend his body and property by use of reasonable force unless that person had time to have recourse to the protection of public authorities.
Facts: X receives information at 5.00 pm that Y along with few friends are planning to burn his crop at midnight which is ready to be harvested. He does not inform the village Police Station which was just one kilometer away. He gathers his family members and directs them to collect some weapons in the form of swords and lathis to protect his field/crop. At around 11.00 pm Y and his aides attack the crop and a severe fight ensues wherein Y is seriously injured.
पर्याय
X is not liable as he was exercising his right of private defence
X and his family are not liable for the injuries caused as they were exercising the right of private defence
X is liable
X and his family is liable as they have not informed the police
Advertisements
उत्तर
X and his family is liable as they have not informed the police
Explanation:
X and his family are liable as they have not informed the police. According to the principle, the right to private defence ceases if the person using this right has the time to take help of the authorities. In this case, the police station is only 1 km away and there is a clear 6 to 7 hours to seek the help of the police.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Principle: An employer is liable for an injury caused by an employee in the course of employment.
Facts: 'A‘ and 'B‘ were working in a factory as unskilled laborers. A was carrying a basket of stones on his head. B was sitting on the ground. When A crossed B, all of a sudden a stone fell down from the basket and hit B on his head. B died instantaneously.
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.
Rape involves an offence which is against:
Which of the following is not a reason for the general lack of liability for omissions in English law?
Mark the best option:
Principles: In case, where the government is a party, the government shall be the first owner of the copyright in the work unless there is an agreement to the contrary.
Facts: The Government of the State of X entered into an agreement with a retired Professor of Botany. Resultantly he wrote the book.
Alexa waves at Bella in a friendly fashion and reaches out to pat her on the shoulder. Bella, who has a pathological fear of catching germs from others, recoils violently from the contact. Which of the following 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.
Legal Principles:
1. Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do or doing something which a prudent or reasonable man would not do
2. Defendant’s duty of care depends of the reasonable foreseeability of injury which may be caused to the plaintiff on breach of duty.
Factual situation: The defendants employees of the Municipal Corporation opened a manhole in the street and in the evening left the manhole open an covered it by a canvass shelter, unattended and surrounded by warning lamps. The plaintiff, an eight years old boy, took one of the lamps into the shelter and was playing with it there when he stumbled over it and fell into the manhole. A violent explosion followed and the plaintiff suffered burn injuries. The defendants are DECISION:
Principle: Where there is a transfer of ownership of one thing for the ownership of some other thing it is called an exchange, while the transfer of ownership for consideration of money is called a sale, whereas without consideration it becomes a gift.
Facts: 'A' transfers his house worth `50 lakh to 'B' for a shopping building worth the same amount, as consideration from 'B'.
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: Negligence is a breach of duty or a failure of one party to exercise the standard of care required by law, resulting in damage to the party to whom the duty was owed. A plaintiff can take civil action against the respondent if the respondent's negligence causes the plaintiff injury or loss of property.
Facts: 'D' went to a cafe and ordered and paid for a tin/can of soft drink. The tin was opaque and therefore, the contents could not be seen from outside. She ('D') consumed some of the contents and then lifted the tin to pour the remainder of the content into a tumbler. The remains of a snail in the decomposed state dropped out of the tin into the tumbler. 'D' later complained of stomach pain and her doctor diagnosed her as having gastroenteritis and being in a state of severe shock. She used the manufacturer of the drink for negligence. Applying the afore-stated principle, which of the following derivations is correct as regards the liability of the manufacturer in the given situation?
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: Whoever stores a substance that could cause damage to escape shall be absolutely liable (i.e. liable even when he has exercised necessary care) for any damage caused by the escape of the substance.
Factual situation: Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) manufactured methyl isocyanate, an extremely toxic gas. Due to a storm, the gas that was being stored in sealed containers got released. Before much could happen, the local municipal authorities managed to contain the disaster. The authorities filed a suit against UCIL for the costs that were incurred in decontamination. However, later it was realized that the clean-up by the authorities could have been done without spending as many resources and the damage was not that significant. UCIL argued that it would pay only part of the amount demanded by the authorities, which could have dealt with the contamination. DECISION:
