मराठी

Principle: One Who Asserts Must Prove. Facts: A Desires a Court to Give Judgment that B, C, and D Shall Be Punished for a Crime Which a Says B, C, and D Have Committed.

Advertisements
Advertisements

प्रश्न

Principle: One who asserts must prove.

Facts:  A desires a Court to give judgment that B, C, and D shall be punished for a crime which A says B, C, and D have committed. 

पर्याय

  • A must prove that B, C, and D were present at the place of crime 

  • A must prove that B, C, and D have committed the crime 

  • B, C, and D must prove that they have not committed the crime 

  • Police must prove that B, C, and D have committed the crime

MCQ
Advertisements

उत्तर

A must prove that B, C, and D have committed the crime 

Explanation:

A must prove that B, C, and D have committed the crime. This is based on the principle “one who asserts must prove”. In this case A desires (which is nearly the same as A asserts) a Court to give judgment that B, C, and D shall be punished for a crime they have committed.   

shaalaa.com
Law of Torts (Entrance Exams)
  या प्रश्नात किंवा उत्तरात काही त्रुटी आहे का?
2018-2019 (May) Set 1

संबंधित प्रश्‍न

Principle: Import means bringing some consignment into India from a foreign country.

Facts: A consignment from Sri Lanka entered the territorial waters of India. However, this consignment never crossed the Indian custom barrier nor did it enter into the stream of commerce in India.


Mark the best option:
Facts: Manish finds a gold watch lying on the road next to his house. He puts the watch in his pocket and returns home. Has Manish committed theft?
Principle: Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent moves that property in order to take it, is said to commit theft.


The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option:

Principle: An offer made by one party when accepted by another makes it a contract.

Transactions:
1. P offered to sell his house for Rs. 20 lakhs to R; R told P that he was interested to buy a house for 15 lakhs only.
2. C was looking for a house for not more than 25 lakhs; P informed C that his house was available for 20 lakhs.
3. K wanted to buy some old furniture; L told K that he would sell his furniture for Rs. 10, 000.
4. R advertised to sell his old car for a price of Rs. Three lakhs; S found the advertisement and offered to buy it for Rs. 2 lakhs 50 thousand; R agrees to sell it to S.

Which among the above is actually a contract?


The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option:

Principle: Acceptance of a proposal must be absolute and unqualified.

Facts: ‘A’ made a proposal to sell his motorcycle to ‘B’ for rupees 25, 000/­. ‘B’ agreed to buy it for rupees 24,000/­. ‘A’ sold his motorcycle to ‘C’ for 26,000/­ the next day. ‘B’ sues ‘A’ for damages.


The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option:

Principle: There are legal provisions to give authority to a person to use necessary force against an assailant or wrong­doer for the purpose of protecting one’s own body and property as also another’s body and property when immediate aid from the state machinery is not readily available; and in so doing he is not answerable in law for his deeds.

Facts: X, a rich man was taking his morning walk. Due to the threat of robbers in the locality, he was carrying his pistol also. In the opposite direction, another person was coming with a ferocious-looking dog. All of a sudden, the dog which was on a chain held by the owner, started barking at X. The owner of the dog called the dog to be calm. Th ey crossed each other without any problem. But suddenly, the dog started barking again from a distance. X immediately took out his pistol. By seeing the pistol the dog stopped barking and started walking with the owner. However, X shot at the dog which died instantly. The owner of the dog files a complaint against X, which in due course reached the Magistrate Court. X pleads the right of private defense. Decide


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 unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land or some right over, or in connection with it, is a nuisance in law of tort.

Facts: During the scarcity of onions, long queues were made outside the defendant's shop who has a license to sell fruits and vegetables used to sell only 1 kg of onion per ration card. The queues extended on to the highway and also caused some obstruction to the neighboring shops. The neighboring shopkeepers filed a suit for nuisance against the defendant.
Which one of the following decisions will be correct in this suit?


PRINCIPLE The use of force with the intent to cause harm, or annoy or induce· fear is termed as the Torts of battery.

FACTS A group of construction workers was negligently handling bricks bycatch and throw. Simmons was passing by the site where one such brick fell on Simmons and he brought a case of battery against the contractor under whose employment the workmen were carrying out the construction.


Which follow from the application of the undermentioned legal principle:

Legal Principle: The occupier of premises owes a duty of care to all his invitees and visitors.

Factual Situation:
Devi who was the owner of a big home with a compound wall, constructed an underground tank to store water. This was covered by jute bags since the work was incomplete. The postman who came inside to deliver registered letter fell into this tank and hurt himself. There was also a box on the outside of the compound wall, where all the mail could be deposited. The injured man filed a suit against Devi claiming compensation.


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: The occupier of a premise owes a duty of care to all his invitees and visitors.

Factual situation: Lalit was running a dairy from his house. People used a dart of his farm as a shortcut to get to a nearby railway station. Lalit who did not approve of this, put up a notice that “Trespassers will be prosecuted”. However, since a number of these people were also his customers he tolerated them. One day a person who was using this short cut was attacked by a bull belonging to the farm. The injured person filed a suit against him. DECISION:


Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer:

Legal Principles:
1. The Tort of Negligence is a legal wrong that is suffered by someone at the hands of another who fails to take proper care to avoid what a reasonable person would regard as a foreseeable risk.
2. The test of liability requires that the harm must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant’s conduct, a relationship of proximity must exist and it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.
3. Volenti non-fit injuria is defence to action in negligence.

Facts:
In a sad incident, 95 fans of a Football club died in a stampede in the Nehru Stadium. The court has decided that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the Police in permitting too many supporters to crowd in one part of the stadium. Now, a suit is filed by Harman and several other people against the Commissioner of State Police. Harman and the other claimants had relatives who were caught up in the Nehru Stadium disaster. The disaster was broadcast on live television, where several claimants alleged, they had witnessed friends and relatives die. Others were present in the stadium or had heard about the events in other ways. All claimed damages for the psychiatric harm they suffered as a result. Determine whether, for the purposes of establishing liability in negligence, those who suffer purely psychiatric harm from witnessing an event at which they are not physically present are sufficiently proximate for a duty to be owed, and thus can be said to be reasonably within the contemplation of the tortfeasor?


Share
Notifications

Englishहिंदीमराठी


      Forgot password?
Use app×