Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Principle: There are certain acts which, though harmful, are not wrongful in law; therefore, do not give legal right to bring action in law, to the person who suffers from such acts.
Facts: 'Prakash' has a rice mill. His neighbor, Shanti, sets up another rice mill and offers a tough competition to Prakash. As a consequence, Prakash's profits fall down. He brings a suit against Shanti for damages.
पर्याय
Prakash can succeed in his claim as it is a case of actual damages
Prakash cannot succeed in his claim for damages, as it is a case of damage without infringement of any legal right.
Prakash can succeed in his claim for damages, as it is a case of damage as a result of infringement of his legal right.
Prakash may succeed in his claim for damages, as it is a case of loss to his business.
Advertisements
उत्तर
Prakash cannot succeed in his claim for damages, as it is a case of damage without infringement of any legal right.
Explanation:
The reasonable conclusion drawn Prakash cannot succeed in his claim for damages, as it is a case of damage without infringement of any legal right.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Mark the best option:
Facts: Babu, the driver of the bus, parked the bus at the karamangala bus station and went to the nearby bakery shop for some cutlets and samosas. Ranjit, the cleaner of the bus, on his own initiative took charge of the bus and drove it through the neighboring by-lanes. While reversing the bus he ran over a man who was trying to cross the road. The man was seriously injured and had to be hospitalized. The man sued the bus company for damages. Decide
Principle: A master is vicariously liable for the negligent acts of his servant acting in the course of his employment.
Within the jurisdiction of which High Court does Lakshadweep fall
Who among the following was the first Chief Information Commissioner of India?
Torts are grounded in the concept of
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 Trespass is the unauthorized entry through the person or tangible object into the property of another. The rights of property exist on the surface, aerially and in the subterrain.
FACTS Kumari and Shravan lived in houses interspersed by the plot of Shantanu. Kumari and Shravan set-up a walkie talkie connection by setting up their transmitte~s facing each other. When Shantanu came to know about the arrangement, he filed a suit of trespass stating that the same was a case of trespass as signals could reach each other only by crossing his plot.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE 'Consent' defined as - Two or more persons are said to consent when they agree upon the same thing in the same sense.
What does 'consent' include?
In a civil suit, the person who files suit and the person against whom the suit is filed are called
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?
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer:
Legal Principles:
1. 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.
2. A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would be likely to injure his neighbor.
3. The foreseeability of the type of damage is a prerequisite of liability in actions of nuisance
Facts:
Bharat Sugar Ltd. operated a sugar refinery on the bank of the river Ravi. They had a jetty from which raw sugar would be offloaded from barges and refined sugar would be taken. The sugar would be taken by larger vessels and then transferred to smaller barges to enable them to get through the shallow waters. As part of development, Bharat Sugar Ltd. wished to construct a new jetty and dredge the water to accommodate the larger vessels. At the same time, the State was constructing new ferry terminals. The design of the ferry terminals was such that it caused the siltation of the channels. After using the channels for a short while, Bharat Sugars’ larger vessels were no longer able to use them. Further dredging at the cost of ₹ 7,50,000 was required to make the channel and jetties usable by the vessels. Bharat Sugar Ltd. brought an action in nuisance to recover the cost of the extra dredging. Is the State liable?
