Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
Legal Principle: One of the principles of ‘Natural Justice’ states that, “No person shall be a judge in his own cause”.
Facts: A, a driver of B, a Branch Manager of ABC Bank was caught, suspecting theft, in the bank premises. The Bank management instituted an enquiry and made B the enquiry officer.
Which of the following statements is correct?
Options
As B is a Bank Manager and not a judge, this principle is inapplicable.
Since the suspected theft was on the bank premises, the manager is the only competent person to enquire about. Hence, the principle is not applicable.
Since B is the employer of A, B should not be conducting the enquiry on the basis of the given principle.
The principle will be applicable, only if the theft committed by A was in relation to the car.
Advertisements
Solution
Since B is the employer of A, B should not be conducting the inquiry on the basis of the given principle.
Explanation:
Nemo iudex in causa sua (or Nemo iudex in sua causa) is a Latin phrase that means, literally, "no-one should be a judge in his own case." It is a principle of natural justice that no person can judge a case in which they have an interest. In the case presented before us the person who is stealing, his employee is made the judge of this theft naturally he will not hold his boss guilty so according to the above-given principle. Option 'Since B is the employer of A, B should not be conducting the inquiry on the basis of the given principle'. is correct
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
Principle: Acceptance of the proposal must be the exact mirror image of the proposal.
Facts: 'A‘ made a proposal to 'B‘ to sell a chair for Rs. 500. 'B‘ is desirous of buying the said chair for Rs. 400.
Principle: The sale of liquor is illegal. All agreements relating to prohibited items do not exist in the eyes of law.
Facts: 'A‘ entered into an agreement with 'B‘ for the sale of liquor. 'A‘ failed to supply the agreed quantity of liquor to B.
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.
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.
The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option:
Principle: Negligence is actionable in law. In simple terms, negligence is the failure to take proper care over something.
Facts: A, a doctor, conducted a hysterectomy sincerely on B and left a small cotton swab inside the abdomen. As a consequence of which B developed some medical problems and had to undergo another surgery. Is A liable?
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principles:
- 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.
- 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.
- The claimant must prove that harm would not have occurred 'but for' the negligence of the defendant. The claimant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant's breach of duty caused the harm.
Factual Situation: Amar worked for an ironworks, Luxmi Mills & Co. Ltd. operating a remotely controlled crane, Amar galvanized items by dipping them into a large tank of molten metal. In order to protect its crane operators, whose controls were located just a few feet from the tank, Luxmi Mills erected a low wall around the tank and also provided a sheet of corrugated iron that crane operators placed between themselves and the wall. The operators were not facing the tank while operating the crane. Thus, they could not see the operation of the crane and therefore relied upon signals from another worker located farther from the tank. Many other galvanizers at the time situated their operators in enclosed, windowed spaces from which they could safely see and perform their work. Luxmi Mills eventually adopted that practice as well. One day, Amar was working on the crane. At one point, he either turned toward the tank or leaned out to see the worker giving him instructions, thereby placing his head outside the iron sheet. A spray of molten metal burned Amar's lip. When it failed to heal and began to ulcerate, he consulted a doctor who diagnosed the wound as cancerous. Amar ultimately died from the spread of cancer after three years. His widow sued Luxmi Mills for negligence. Whether the employers would be liable for the full extent of the burn and cancer that had developed as a result?
Which follow from the application of the undermentioned legal principle:
Legal Principle: Even if the sovereign functions of the State are discharged negligently the State is not vicariously liable in tort.
Factual Situation:
A’ was a trader in gold. There he was arrested by Police and was detained in the police lock-up after search. The gold with him along with sundry other things was seized. Later he was discharged. His possessions seized by the police were returned, except the gold. HE moved against the State in tort. In the words of the Supreme Court, “There can be no escape from the conclusion that the Police Officers were negligent in dealing with the property after it was seized.” One of the Constables was a Muslim. He fled with gold to Pakistan.
Principle: A Master is liable for the acts of his Servant as long as he can control the working of his servant.
A owned a taxi agency. She had hired B to drive one of her cars. On January 1, 2010, C called up A's taxi agency and asked for a car to drop him from his house to his place of work. On the way, because of the driver's negligence, the car hit a road divider and C was injured. He sued A for damages.
Principle: A person who commits an unlawful act towards another which can be imputed to him, must repair the damage which the other person suffers as a consequence thereof.
Facts: Mr. Rajender Singh was riding his scooter on the right side of the road which is illegal as per the Traffic Rules. Mr. Rajesh Chawla was driving his car in the opposite direction. The two vehicles collided and resulted in loss of Rs. 50,000/- to Mr. Rajender Singh. This includes his medical expenses and damage to the scooter. In this accident, there is no fault on the part of Mr. Rajesh Chawla.
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: Whoever stores a substance that could cause damage to escape shall be absolutely liable (i.e. liable even when he has exercised necessary care) for any damage caused by the escape of the substance.
Factual situation: Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) manufactured methyl isocyanate, an extremely toxic gas. Due to a storm, the gas that was being stored in sealed containers got released. Before much could happen, the local municipal authorities managed to contain the disaster. The authorities filed a suit against UCIL for the costs that were incurred in decontamination. However, later it was realized that the clean-up by the authorities could have been done without spending as many resources and the damage was not that significant. UCIL argued that it would pay only part of the amount demanded by the authorities, which could have dealt with the contamination. DECISION:
