Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
Principle: Employer is liable for the injury caused to the employee in the course of his employment.
Facts: X organized a party and hired a caterer. During the party, the generator set went out of order and he requested one employee of caterer i.e. Y to bring the mechanic on his vehicle and promised to pay 1000 for the same to Y. Y met with an accident while going to fetch the mechanic and he seeks compensation.
Options
X is liable as Y was working in the course of employment offered by X
X is not liable as Y is not his employee
X is liable because party was organized by him
A caterer is liable as Y is his employee
Advertisements
Solution
X is liable as Y was working in the course of employment offered by X
Explanation:
X is liable as Y was working in the course of employment offered by X. In this case, the liability falls on X because for that time period Y was his employee as he had promised Y Rs.1000/- for the job of calling a mechanic using his own (X’s) vehicle.
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
Principle: Foreign judgment binds the parties and is conclusive unless it is obtained by fraud.
Facts: A obtains a judgment from the US court by producing fake documents.
The Right to Property was excluded from the Fundamental Rights during the tenure of the Government headed by
Principles:
- An independent contractor is one who is employed to do some work of his employer. He is engaged under a contract for services. He undertakes to produce a given result, and in the actual execution of the work, he is not under the direct control or following directions of his employer. He may use his own discretion in execution of the work assigned.
- In general, an employer is not liable for the torts (wrongful acts) of his independent contractor. But, the employer may be held liable if he directs him to do some careless acts.
Facts: Ramesh hired a taxicab to go to Delhi Airport. As he started late from his home, he kept on urging the taxidriver to drive at a high speed and driver followed the directions; and ultimately due to high speed an accident took place causing injuries to a person.
The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option
Principle: Assault is causing bodily injury to another person by use of physical force.
Facts: Rustum while entering into compartment of a train raised his fist in anger towards a person Sheetal, just in front of him in the row, to get way to enter into the train first, but did not hit him. Rustum has:
Legal Principle: An employer is liable for the act of his servant performed during the course of employment.
Fact Situation: While working as a driver for Verma, Alok sometimes used to earn some side income by carrying parcels for others in Verma’s car without his knowledge or permission. While going to pick Verma from the airport one day, Alok stopped to deliver a parcel he was carrying with him. While he was delivering the parcel, which unknown to him was one of contraband goods, the police arrested Alok.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
Principle: A libel is a publication of a false and defamatory statement tending to injure the reputation of another person without lawful justification or excuse. Slander is a false and defamatory statement by spoken words or gestures tending to injure the reputation of another.
A wrote a letter to B calling him a cheat. B's clerk C opened the letter, as he normally did (a fact which was known to A) and placed it on B's table. B alleges that A has committed libel
Principle: A citizen is expected to take the reasonable duty of care while driving on the road and not to cause injuries to any person.
Facts: X, the owner of a car, asked his friend Y to drive the car to his office. As the car was near his (X' s) office, it hit a pedestrian P on account of Y' s negligent driving and injured him seriously. P sued X for damages.
Two persons are said to be joint tort-feasors 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.
Principle: An employer is liable for the negligence of his employee. But an employer is not liable for the negligence of his employee, if the victim of such negligence is one of his other employees.
Facts: A and B were working in factory as unskilled labourers. A was carrying a basket of stones on his head. B was sitting on the ground. When A crossed B, all of a sudden a stone fell down from the basket and hit B on his head. B died immediately.
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 occupier of a premise owes a duty of care to all his invitees and visitor.
Factual Situation: Radhika's brother, Akash, had come to visit at her place. After seeing her wealth. Akash decided to commit theft that night. While he was trying to escape that night he gets electrocuted by the wires which were fixed on the boundary walls. Akash plans to sue Radhika. Will his claim succeed? DECISION:
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?
