Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Principle: The existence of all the alleged facts is relevant whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places.
Facts: A, a citizen of England, is accused of committing the murder of B in India by taking part in a conspiracy hatched in England.
पर्याय
The facts that A accused of commission of murder and of conspiracy are relevant facts
Only the fact that A is accused of committing the murder of B is relevant
Only the fact that A is accused of the conspiracy hatched in England is relevant
A citizen of England cannot be tried in India
Advertisements
उत्तर
The facts that A accused of commission of murder and of conspiracy are relevant facts
Explanation:
The facts that A is accused of commission of murder and of conspiracy are relevant facts based on the principle: “Existence of all the alleged facts is relevant whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places.” It doesn’t matter whether A was in India or England.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Principle: Whoever by words publishes any imputation concerning any person is said to defame that person.
Facts: During a marriage ceremony, A circulated a pamphlet saying the sister of the bride 'S‘ is a thief, she has stolen the shoes of the bridegroom.
Legal Principle: The Latin maxim qui facit per alium, facit per se means that he who acts through another, acts himself.
Fact Situation: Heema requests her minor sister Harika to purchase a bag for her from the local shop. Harika purchases the bag on credit telling the shop keeper that her sister will pay for it. Afterward, Heema refuses to pay for the bag.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
When goods are displayed in a shop with a price tag, it is
What kind of contact must the plaintiff prove as an element of the tort of battery?
Volenti nonfit injuria’ refers to:
Injuria sine damnum stands for.
Principle: A citizen is expected to take reasonable duty of care while driving on the road and not to cause injuries to any person.
Facts: X, the owner of a car, asked his friend Y to drive the car to his office. As the car was near his (X' s) office, it hit a pedestrian P on account of Y' s negligent driving and injured him seriously. P sued X for damages.
Which one 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.
Principle: A person has no legal remedy for an injury caused by an act to which he has consented.
Facts: 'R', a cricket enthusiast, purchases a ticket to watch a T20 match organized by the Indian Premier League (IPL). During the match, a ball struck for six hits 'R' on his body and injures him. He sues IPL for compensation for the medical expenses.
Which of the following derivation 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.
Principle: An employer is responsible for any accident loss caused to his employees, during the course of employment.
Factual Situation: Ravi Menon runs the "African Circus'. The circus has a ' night show. Two motorcyclists Rohit and Mohit rotate their motorcycles inside a big iron globe in complete darkness. And the audience, especially the children give a big clap. One day, it so happens that during the one-night show, an accident occurs inside the globe. Rohit and Mohit collide with each other and Rohit loses both his legs. His parents claim compensation from Ravi Menon, the proprietor of the circus. 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?
