मराठी

Principle: Use of Criminal Force Intentionally Knowing that It Would Cause Or is Likely to Cause Injury Or Annoyance to the Person Against Whom Force is Used - Mathematics

Advertisements
Advertisements

प्रश्न

Principle: Use of criminal force intentionally knowing that it would cause or is likely to cause injury or annoyance to the person against whom force is used, is an offense.

Facts: X, a renowned social worker who had launched a movement for the liberation of women, pull up a Muslim women‘s veil in public in good faith without her consent causing annoyance to her. 

पर्याय

  • X is a renowned social worker and he has committed no offence because his motive was good 

  • X acted in good faith to liberate her from clutches of tradition and has hence has committed no offence 

  • X has done the act in public and not in secrecy, therefore, had not committed any offence

  • X has committed an offence by use of criminal force 

MCQ
Advertisements

उत्तर

X has committed an offense by use of criminal force 

Explanation:

X has committed an offense by the use of criminal force.  The act has caused annoyance to the victim. Moreover,  X used criminal force (using his physical power to unveil the woman) and the use of criminal force is intentional. According to the principle intentional use of criminal force and the knowledge that it would cause  annoyance makes it an offense.   

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

संबंधित प्रश्‍न

Principle: Where a person lawfully does anything for another person, or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so or to provide gratuitously, and such other person takes the benefit of that; the latter is bound to compensate the former for something is done or thing provided, or to restore, the thing so delivered.

Facts: Trader 'A' delivers certain eatables at B's house by mistake. 'B' consumed the eatables without asking anything. Which of the following derivations is correct?


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


Development of the law of tort has taken through:


In most cases, a threat of violence made over the telephone cannot constitute an assault. Which of the following most accurately explains why not?


Aaron points a gun at Bridget and threatens to shoot her. Aaron knows that the gun is not loaded but Bridget does not. Which of the following most accurately states the likely outcome if Bridget sues Aaron alleging assault?


This tort occurs most often in society.


Unliquidated damages mean


A person is said to be vicariously liable when


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 person is liable for negligence if he fails to take care of his neighbour's interest.
2. A neighbour is anyone whose interests should have been foreseeable by a reasonable man while carrying on his activities.

Facts:

A cricket match was going on in a closed-door stadium. A cricket fan who could not get into the stadium was watching the game by climbing up a nearby tree and sitting there. The cricket ball in the course of the game went out of the stadium and hit this person and injured him. He filed a suit against the organizers.

Possible Decisions

(a) The organizers are liable to compensate the injured person.
(b) The organizers are not liable to compensate the injured person'
(c) The injured person should have avoided the place where he might be hit by the cricket ball.

Possible Reasons

(i) The organizers are responsible for the people inside the stadium.
(ii) The organizers could not have foreseen somebody watching the game by climbing up a tree.
(iii) A person crazy about something must pay the price for that.
(iv) The organizers shall be liable to everybody likely to watch the game. Your decision with the reason.


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. When a person unlawfully interferes in the chattel of another person by which the latter is deprived of its use, the former commits the tort of conversion.
2. Nobody shall enrich himself at other's expense,

Facts:

A patient suffering from stomach ailment approached. a teaching hospital. He was diagnosed as suffering from appendicitis and his appendix was removed. He became alright. The hospital however found some unique cells in the appendix and using the cell lines thereof, it developed drugs of enormous commercial value. When the erstwhile patient came to know about it, he claimed a share in the profit made by the hospital.

Possible Decisions

(a) The hospital need not share its profits with the patient.
(b) The hospital may share its profits on ex gratis basis. (c) The hospital shall share its profits with the patient.

Possible Reasons

(i) The patient, far from being deprived of the use of his appendix, actually benefitted by its removal.
(ii) The hospital instead of throwing away the appendix conducted further research on it on its own and the development of the drug was the result of its own effort.
(iii) The hospital could not have achieved its success without that appendix belonging to the patient.
(iv) Everybody must care for and share with others. Your decision with the reason.


Share
Notifications

Englishहिंदीमराठी


      Forgot password?
Use app×