English

Legal Principle: Negligence is the Absence of Care by One Party Which Results in Some Damage to Another. Damage is an Essential Ingredient to Constitute a Tort of Negligence.

Advertisements
Advertisements

Question

Legal Principle: Negligence is the absence of care by one party which results in some damage to another. Damage is an essential ingredient to constitute a tort of negligence.

Fact Situation: Mistry left his ladder on the public road while unloading it from a truck when he went to open the shutters of his shop. Saini who was riding his motorcycle had to swerve hard to avoid hitting the ladder as he came with speed on the road. Saini fell down but was miraculously not injured.

Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?

Options

  • Mistry is not liable for the tort of negligence since Saini was not injured though he fell down.

  • Mistry is liable for the tort of negligence since Saini fell down due to the presence of the ladder.

  • Mistry is not liable for the tort of negligence since Saini was speeding on the road.

  • Mistry is liable for the tort of negligence since he was careless in leaving the ladder on the road.

MCQ
Advertisements

Solution

Mistry is liable for the tort of negligence since Saini fell down due to the presence of the ladder.

Explanation:

Negligent torts are not deliberate actions, but instead, present when an individual or entity fails to act as a  reasonable person to someone whom he or she owes a duty to. The negligent action found in this particular tort leads to a personal injury or monetary damages.  Thus the two major essentials of tort are (a) negligence and (b) damage or injury.  
Facts of the case presented before us mention that  Saini who was riding a motorcycle fell down due to  Mistry's negligence even though he did not get injured,  DAMAGE was caused to his motorcycle, clothes, time, etc. Thus we can easily conclude that "Mistry is liable for the tort of negligence since Saini fell down due to the presence of the ladder." is the most appropriate statement.   

shaalaa.com
Law of Torts (Entrance Exams)
  Is there an error in this question or solution?
2017-2018 (May) Set 1

RELATED QUESTIONS

Principle: Everyone has the right of private defense to defend his body and property by use of reasonable force unless that person had time to have recourse to the protection of public authorities.

Facts: X receives information at 5.00 pm that Y along with few friends are planning to burn his crop at midnight which is ready to be harvested. He does not inform the village Police Station which was just one kilometer away. He gathers his family members and directs them to collect some weapons in the form of swords and lathis to protect his field/crop. At around 11.00 pm Y and his aides attack the crop and a severe fight ensues wherein Y is seriously injured. 


Principle: One who dishonestly mis­appropriates or converts to his own use or sells any movable property belonging to another, is guilty of the offence of misappropriation.

Facts: 'A' takes property belonging to 'Z' out of Z's possession, in good faith, believing when he takes it, that the property belongs to himself. Subsequently, 'A', on discovering his mistake, without disclosing the actual facts, dishonestly sells the property to a stranger.


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

Principle: The concept of natural justice is against bias and for the right to a fair hearing. While the term natural justice is often retained as a general concept, and it has largely been replaced and extended by the general ‘duty to act fairly’.

Facts: ‘X’, a male employee of a company was dismissed by the employer just on the basis of a complaint by ‘Y’, a female employee of the company that ‘X’ was trying to be too friendly with her and often requested her to accompany him to the canteen. Is the dismissal of ‘X’ valid?


___ is NOT a Central Government tax.


Torts are grounded in the concept of


Consent defines as


Qui facit per alium facit per se stands for


A person is said to be vicariously liable when


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 master/principal is liable for all acts done by his duly appointed servant/agent for all acts done by him lawfully in the course of his employment. 

Factual Situation: A had an agency that used to lend carpenters to people on need basis. A deputed B to do some repair work in C's shed. While so doing, B lit up a  cigarette and threw it as soon as he saw someone coming there. The cigarette remaining lit caused a fire and she was reduced to ashes. C sued A and B. Decide. DECISION: 


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?


Share
Notifications

Englishहिंदीमराठी


      Forgot password?
Use app×