Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Principle: Nothing is an offense if it is done under intoxication and the person committing the offense was incapable to understand the nature of the Act. Intoxication should be without the knowledge or against the will of the person.
Facts: A, B and C were having a party in Bar where A persuaded B and C to take alcoholic drinks. On the persistent persuasion B and C also consumed alcohol along with A. B and C had never consumed alcohol before. After intoxication, there was some argument between B and C where C pushed B with full force causing serious injury to B.
पर्याय
C is liable
C is not liable because he was intoxicated
A is liable because A pursuaded them to consume alcohol whereas they had never consumed alcohol
A and C both are liable
Advertisements
उत्तर
C is liable
Explanation:
According to the principle, a person under intoxication is not liable for an offence if intoxication is without his knowledge or against his will. In this case, C had the knowledge of his intoxication and it happened with his consent. In other words, C was persuaded, not forced to drink.
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.
When goods are displayed in a shop with a price tag, it is
What the Injuries Board is...
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principles:
- 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.
- The person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.
- A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would likely to injure his neighbour.
- The foreseeability of the type of damage is a pre-requisite of liability in actions of nuisance.
Factual Situation: M G Ltd. was constructing Crystal Heights, a posh state-of-the-art tower for commercial and residential purposes, in Gurugram. During construction, hundreds of claimants alleged that, in addition to dust and noise caused by the erection of the building, their television signals had been interrupted by the tower. The claimants, some of whom were absolute owners, and many others who were renting, sued in both negligences and in nuisance for the harm done to their amenity by the loss of their television signals. Whether the respondent's action in causing the appellant's television signals to be interrupted with the construction of their tower could constitute a private nuisance?
PRINCIPLE The test as to whether the act done by an officer or agency of the state is a sovereign function or a function done ordinarily is dependent on the fact that an alternative person may also carry out the latter, but the former may only be carried out by the state.
FACTS In a boundary settlement dispute between India and Bangladesh, a certain territory was exchanged in pursuit of a treaty agreement. X's land which lay in the Indian enclave thus got transferred to Bangladesh, which did not recognise his proprietary rights. In a suit against the Indian Government, the likely outcome is
LEGAL PRINCIPLE A master will be liable for the wrongful acts of his servants in the course of employment.
FACTUAL SITUATION Maria was an old widow who opened an account with the Indian Overseas Bank, whereby she would deposit ₹5 every day in the bank. Stephen was her neighbour, who used to collect the amount and deposit them in the bank. Stephen would get a small commission from the bank for the money deposited. One day, it was discovered that Stephen who had not deposited the money for more than three months had vanished with the amount. Maria filed a suit against the Bank.
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: An employer is liable for the negligence of his employee. But an employer is not liable for the negligence of his employee, if the victim of such negligence is one of his other employees.
Facts: A and B were working in factory as unskilled labourers. 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 immediately.
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 unlawful intrusion that interferes with one's person or property constitutes trespass.
2. An easement is the right to use another person's land for a stated purpose and has been in use for quite some time. It can involve a general or specific portion of the property.
Factual Situation: Vijay wanted to construct a shed on his window to stop the water from leaking to his house. The shed was constructed but it protruded in Namit's house. Vijay claims it is his elementary right. Will Vijay's claim succeed? 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.
