Principle: an Occupier is Not Normally Liable to a Trespasser Except in Respect of Willful Act Intended to Cause Harm Or Done with Reckless Disregard. Facts: Jaspal, a Richman of the Locality - Legal Reasoning

Advertisement Remove all ads
MCQ

Mark the best option:
Principle: An occupier is not normally liable to a trespasser except in respect of willful act intended to cause harm or done with reckless disregard.
Facts: Jaspal, a richman of the locality had kept a ferocious dog to guard his house. He strictly instructed all his servants not to go near that dog and there was a special attender who was to take care of the dog. There was a prominent board warning the visitors about the ferocious dog. One day, a twelve-year-old boy playing in the neighborhood, running after his ball got into the house. The dog attacked him and killed him. Jaspal was sued for damages.

Options

  • Jaspal is not liable, because the boy was a trespasser.

  • Jaspal is not liable, because a twelve-year boy ought to have known about the presence of the ferocious dog.

  • Jaspal is liable for the negligence of his servant to keep watch on such a ferocious dog during the day time.

  • None of the above

Advertisement Remove all ads

Solution

Jaspal is not liable, because a twelve-year boy ought to have known about the presence of the ferocious dog.
Jaspal is not liable as the boy is a trespasser.

Concept: Law of Torts (Entrance Exams)
  Is there an error in this question or solution?
Advertisement Remove all ads
Advertisement Remove all ads
Share
Notifications

View all notifications


      Forgot password?
View in app×