Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
Principle: False imprisonment is a tort (wrong) which means the total restraint of a person's liberty without lawful justification.
Facts: A part of a public road had been closed for spectators of a boat race. 'P' wanted to enter but he was prevented by 'D' and other policemen because he had not paid the admission fee. 'P' was able to enter the enclosure by other means but was unable to go where he wanted to go. The policemen refused access to where he wanted to go but allowed him to remain where he was or to go back. 'P' remained within the enclosure and refused to leave. Subsequently, 'P' sued 'D' for false imprisonment.
Options
It was a case of false imprisonment, but 'D' could not be made liable for it.
'D' could not be made liable for false imprisonment, as he did not totally restrict P's movements.
'D' could be made liable for false imprisonment, as he did restrict P's movements.
'D' could not be made liable for false imprisonment as he has not touched him.
Advertisements
Solution
'D' could not be made liable for false imprisonment, as he did not totally restrict P's movements.
Explanation:
The tort of false imprisonment is constituted when there is a total restraint. It is no imprisonment if a person prevented from going in a particular direction but he his free to go any other direction. If a man is prevented from going to a particular direction but is allowed to go back there is no false imprisonment. The reasonable conclusion in the above-noted question is that there was no total restraint on the P's liberty. The reasonable conclusion is drawn that D could not be held liable for false imprisonment and he did not restrict P' s movement is the correct answer.
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
Consists of legal proposition(s)/ principle(s) (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. Such principles may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this Section. In other words, in answering these questions, you must not rely on any principle except the principles that are given herein below for every question.
Further, you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your interest in the study of law, research aptitude, and problem-solving ability, even if the 'most reasonable conclusion' arrived at may be absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the objective of this section to test your knowledge of the law.
Therefore, to answer a question, the principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option.
Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. Nothing is an offence which is done in madness.
Facts: A, under the influence of madness, attempts to kill B. B to save his life kills A.
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.
Mark the best option:
Facts: Kumar had a ferocious dog which used to guard his house. One evening when Mohan was returning home after illegally purchasing an unlicensed gun, he happened to pass Kumar’s house, the latter’s dog ran out and bit Mohan’s trouser and on Mohan's turning around and raising his gun the dog ran away. Mohan shot the dog as it was running into the house. Kumar’sdog died after two days because of the gunshot and he sued Mohan for compensation.
Principle:
- Every person has a right to defend his own person, property or possession against unlawful harm.
- The person may use reasonable force in order to protect his person, property or possession.
- However, the force employed should be proportionate to the apprehended danger.
The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option
Principle: When a person consented to an act to be done by another, he cannot claim any damages resulting from doing that act, provided the act done is the same for which consent is given.
Facts: 'P' submitted written consent to a surgeon 'S' for undergoing a surgical operation for removal of appendicitis. The surgeon while doing surgery also removed the gall bladder of 'A':
Amelia locks Britton in the closet for a few minutes, then lets him out. There is a window in the closet, which is on the fifth floor. Which of the following statements is most accurate?
What is the Compensation Act 2006 s 1 has what purpose...
Injuria sine damnum stands for.
PRINCIPLE An owner of land has the right to use the land in any manner he or she desires. The owner of the land also owns the space above and the depths below it.
FACTS Ramesh owns an acre of land on the outskirts of Sullurpeta, Andhra Pradesh. The Government of India launches its satellites into space frequently from Sriharikota, near Sullurpeta. The Government of India does not deny that once the satellite launch has travelled the distance of almost 7000 kilometres it passes over Ramesh's property. Ramesh files a case claiming that the Government of India has violated his property rights by routing its satellite over his property, albeit 7000 kilometers directly above it.
Applying the principle to the case you would decide
PRINCIPLE A master is liable for the acts of his servant, a principal is liable for the acts of the agent, but a hirer of services is not liable for the acts of the independent contractor.
FACTS While implementing the request of Mr. Sampat, the confectioner at Ghantewali and Co. made the oil extra hot to make him a batch of extra crispy banana fritters, the oil sizzled on impact and burnt Dadabhoy who was standing nearby. He wants to know as to whom he should sue
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.
