Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Principle: False imprisonment is a tort (wrong) which means the total restraint of a person's liberty without lawful justification.
Facts: A part of a public road had been closed for spectators of a boat race. 'P' wanted to enter but he was prevented by 'D' and other policemen because he had not paid the admission fee. 'P' was able to enter the enclosure by other means but was unable to go where he wanted to go. The policemen refused access to where he wanted to go but allowed him to remain where he was or to go back. 'P' remained within the enclosure and refused to leave. Subsequently, 'P' sued 'D' for false imprisonment.
पर्याय
It was a case of false imprisonment, but 'D' could not be made liable for it.
'D' could not be made liable for false imprisonment, as he did not totally restrict P's movements.
'D' could be made liable for false imprisonment, as he did restrict P's movements.
'D' could not be made liable for false imprisonment as he has not touched him.
Advertisements
उत्तर
'D' could not be made liable for false imprisonment, as he did not totally restrict P's movements.
Explanation:
The tort of false imprisonment is constituted when there is a total restraint. It is no imprisonment if a person prevented from going in a particular direction but he his free to go any other direction. If a man is prevented from going to a particular direction but is allowed to go back there is no false imprisonment. The reasonable conclusion in the above-noted question is that there was no total restraint on the P's liberty. The reasonable conclusion is drawn that D could not be held liable for false imprisonment and he did not restrict P' s movement is the correct answer.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Mark the best option:
Facts: Kumar had a ferocious dog which used to guard his house. One evening when Mohan was returning home after illegally purchasing an unlicensed gun, he happened to pass Kumar’s house, the latter’s dog ran out and bit Mohan’s trouser and on Mohan's turning around and raising his gun the dog ran away. Mohan shot the dog as it was running into the house. Kumar’sdog died after two days because of the gunshot and he sued Mohan for compensation.
Principle:
- Every person has a right to defend his own person, property or possession against unlawful harm.
- The person may use reasonable force in order to protect his person, property or possession.
- However, the force employed should be proportionate to the apprehended danger.
Who is an Ombudsman?
The law relating to prisoners of war has been codified by
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?
Given below is the 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: ln the employer-employee relationship, the employer is held liable for all the wrongs committed by his employees in the course of employment.
FACTUAL SITUATION: David was employed as a Driver in ABC & Co over the past 15 years and has been appreciated by the General Manager for his hard work and sincerity. He has been rewarded by the company for his accident-free record. David's younger brother wanted to join the same company as a driver. He obtained a Learner's Licence, joined a Driving School and was learning driving during the last three months. He was on the verge of completion of the training and appear for the Driving test. He wanted to have more practice before the test and requested his brother David for using the Company's car for two days. David also allowed him to use the office car for the practice. While he was practicing driving, a truck came from the wrong side, hit the company's car driven by David's brother, which in turn hit a pedestrian and injured him. The pedestrian sues the company for damages.
DECISION:
PRINCIPLE A master is liable for the acts of his servant, a principal is liable for the acts of the agent, but a hirer of services is not liable for the acts of the independent contractor.
FACTS While implementing the request of Mr. Sampat, the confectioner at Ghantewali and Co. made the oil extra hot to make him a batch of extra crispy banana fritters, the oil sizzled on impact and burnt Dadabhoy who was standing nearby. He wants to know as to whom he should sue
The question contains some basic principles and fact situations in which these basic principles have to be applied. A list of probable decisions and reasons are given.
Principles:
1. A master shall be liable for the fraudulent acts of his servants committed in the course of employment.
2. Whether an act is committed in the course of employment has to be judged in the context of the case.
3. Both master and third parties must exercise reasonable care in this regard.
Facts:
Rama Bhai was an uneducated widow and she opened a'S.B. account with Syndicate Bank with the help of her nephew by name Keshav who was at that time working as a clerk in the Bank. 'Keshav used to deposit the money of Rama Bhai from time to time' and get the entries done in the passbook. After a year or so, Keshav was dismissed from the service by the Bank. Being unaware of this fact, Rama Bhai continued to hand over her savings to him and Keshav misappropriated them. Rama Bhai realized this only when Keshav disappeared from, the scene one day and she sought compensation from the Bank.
Possible Decisions
(a) Syndicate Bank shall be liable to compensate Rama Bhai.
(b) Syndicate Bank shall not be liable to compensate Rama Bhai.
(c) Rama Bhai cannot blame others for her negligence.
Possible Reasons
(i) Keshav was not an employee of the Bank when the fraud" was committed.
(ii) The Bank was not aware of the special arrangement between Rama Bhai and Keshay.
(iii) It is the Bank's duty to take care of vulnerable customers.
(iv) Rama Bhai should have checked about Keshav in her own interest. Your decision with the reason
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: Trespass to land means direct interference with the possession of land without lawful justification. Trespass could be committed either by a person himself entering the land of another person or doing the same through some tangible object(s).
Facts: 'A' throws some stones upon his neighbor's (B's) premises. 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.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE:
1. An act done by the consent of a person above 18 years is not an offense; provide the offender did not intend to cause death or grievous hurt.
2. Mere pecuniary benefit is not a thing done for a person's benefit'.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A is in a house which is on fire, with Z, a child. People below hold out a blanket. A drops the child from the housetop, knowing it to be likely that the fall may kill the child but intending to save him from the fire. Unfortunately, the child is killed is guilty? DECISION:
Mr. Samay was severely hurt while working in his factory and fell unconscious. He was rushed to a hospital by his fellow workers. In the hospital (at the emergency/casualty ward), the doctor opined that he should be operated immediately. While conducting preliminary examinations, he was found to be HIV positive. The doctors are in a dilemma regarding what should they do first.
