Principle: Nothing is an Offence by Reason of Any Harm It May Cause to Another Person If It is Done in Good Faith and for the Benefit of that Person Even Without that Person‘S Consent - Legal Reasoning


Principle: Nothing is an offense by reason of any harm it may cause to another person if it is done in good faith and for the benefit of that person even without that person‘s consent.

Facts: A is attacked by a Lion and Lion drags him while he is crying for help. B, a passer-by picks up A‘s gun in good faith and fires at Lion which injures A. B has never used the gun before. 


  • B is liable for the injury because he knew that he can injure A as he has never used any gun before 

  • B is not liable as he has done the act in good faith 

  • B is liable because he has not taken A‘s consent before firing 

  • B is liable because he has used A‘s gun without his consent 



B is not liable as he has done the act in good faith 


The principle states that if a person has done some action in good faith for the benefit of another person even without his consent and if his action does some harm to that person, his action is not an offense. In this case, B used the gun in good faith to save A.

Concept: Law of Torts (Entrance Exams)
  Is there an error in this question or solution?
2018-2019 (May) Set 1


Principle: Death caused by a rash or negligent act of a person is an offence.

Facts: X was driving his SUV car on a lonely road leading to a forest at 160 km per hour. Suddenly, someone appears from the forest on the road and in the resultant accident, the car hits the commuter causing his death. 

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?

The law relating to prisoners of war has been codified by

Mark the best option:
Principles: Qui facit per alium facit per se, " he who does things through others does it himself"
Facts: Nisha owner of a car asked her friend Saurabh to take her car and drive the same to her office. As he car near her office, it hit a pedestrian Srikant, who was injured seriously. Srikant files a case against Nisha.
Decide Nisha's liability.

Mark the best option:

  1. Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threats, commits criminal intimidation.
  2. A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interesting, is covered within the above provision.

Facts: Monty is a tenant in the Sharmas' house, living on the top floor while the Sharmas occupy the ground floor. However, he is always irregular in paying the rent. The Sharmas' are tired of asking him to pay on time and his manners have deteriorated over time. What started as mere excuses snowballed into name-calling, until one day, Monty threatened to come with his friends and vandalize the Sharmas' house, if they complained or took action against him.
Post the threat issued by Monty, the Sharmas' called the welfare officer of their residential colony, Budhdeb to discuss the matter with him. Monty threatened Budhdeb saying that he would expose his deceased father's illegal activities and release his personal numbers etc. on the internet to trouble Budhdeb.
Against whom is Monty guilty of criminal intimidation?

Given below is the 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: ln the employer-employee relationship, the employer is held liable for all the wrongs committed by his employees in the course of employment.
FACTUAL SITUATION: David was employed as a Driver in ABC & Co over the past 15 years and has been appreciated by the General Manager for his hard work and sincerity. He has been rewarded by the company for his accident-free record. David's younger brother wanted to join the same company as a driver. He obtained a Learner's Licence, joined a Driving School and was learning driving during the last three months. He was on the verge of completion of the training and appear for the Driving test. He wanted to have more practice before the test and requested his brother David for using the Company's car for two days. David also allowed him to use the office car for the practice. While he was practicing driving, a truck came from the wrong side, hit the company's car driven by David's brother, which in turn hit a pedestrian and injured him. The pedestrian sues the company for damages.

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. The person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.
  3. A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would likely to injure his neighbour.
  4. The foreseeability of the type of damage is a pre-requisite of liability in actions of nuisance.

Factual Situation: M G Ltd. was constructing Crystal Heights, a posh state-of-the-art tower for commercial and residential purposes, in Gurugram. During construction, hundreds of claimants alleged that, in addition to dust and noise caused by the erection of the building, their television signals had been interrupted by the tower. The claimants, some of whom were absolute owners, and many others who were renting, sued in both negligences and in nuisance for the harm done to their amenity by the loss of their television signals. Whether the respondent's action in causing the appellant's television signals to be interrupted with the construction of their tower could constitute a private nuisance?

Consent defines as

Public nuisance include


I. A master is liable for the wrongful acts of his servant.
II. A person can be called a servant only if there is a relation of employment and he acts under the order and on behalf of his master.


X bank launched a saving scheme for poor sections of the society and the customer can deposit ₹10 per day. Y, an unemployed youth, collected money from several customers, and on behalf of them deposited the money at the bank every day. The bank gave to Y a small commission. After some time, Y disappeared without depositing the money given by the customers. The customers bring a suit alleging that the bank is liable. Decide 

PRINCIPLE The use of force with the intent to cause harm, or annoy or induce· fear is termed as the Torts of battery.

FACTS A group of construction workers was negligently handling bricks bycatch and throw. Simmons was passing by the site where one such brick fell on Simmons and he brought a case of battery against the contractor under whose employment the workmen were carrying out the construction.

PRINCIPLE A person is not liable for every harm which comes from the act but is only liable for those harms which can be reasonably foreseen at the time of the injury.

FACTS Sumati, who was being threatened by armed robbery pulled the railway chain. The engine driver recorded the chain pulling but did not stop thinking it to be the work of mischievous passengers wishing to alight before the station. As a result, no help came to Sumati, who was robbed and injured. The suit brought by her was resisted by the railways. As a judge, you would

In Law of Torts,

The question contains some basic principles and fact situations in which these basic principles have to be applied. A list of probable decisions and reasons are given.


(1) Consumable goods that are not fit for consumption are not marketable.
(2) A consumer shall not suffer on account of unmarketable goods.
(3) A seller is liable for knowingly selling unmarketable goods.
(4) A manufacturer shall be liable for the quality of his products.


Ram bought a Coca Cola bottle from Shama's shop. Back at home, the server opened the bottle and poured the drink into the glasses of Ram and his friend Tom. As Tom started drinking, he felt irritation in his throat. Immediately, Ram and Tom took the sample to test and found nitric acid in the content. Ram filed a suit against Shama, Coca Cola company and the bottler, Kishen and Co.

Suggested Decisions

(a) Ram cannot get compensation
(b) Tom can get compensation
(c) Both Ram and Tom can get compensation

Suggested Reasons

(i) Shama did not know the contents of sealed bottle.
(ii) Ram did not actually suffer though he bought the bottle.
(iii) Tom did not buy the bottle.
(iv) Coca Cola company is responsible since it supplied the concentrate.
(v) Kishen & Co is responsible since it added water, sugar, etc., and sealed the bottle.
(vi) Shama is responsible for selling the defective product. Your decision with the reason,

The question contains some basic principles and fact situations in which these basic principles have to be applied. A list of probable decisions and reasons are given.


1. A person is liable for negligence if he fails to take care of his neighbour's interest.
2. A neighbour is anyone whose interests should have been foreseeable by a reasonable man while carrying on his activities.


A cricket match was going on in a closed-door stadium. A cricket fan who could not get into the stadium was watching the game by climbing up a nearby tree and sitting there. The cricket ball in the course of the game went out of the stadium and hit this person and injured him. He filed a suit against the organizers.

Possible Decisions

(a) The organizers are liable to compensate the injured person.
(b) The organizers are not liable to compensate the injured person'
(c) The injured person should have avoided the place where he might be hit by the cricket ball.

Possible Reasons

(i) The organizers are responsible for the people inside the stadium.
(ii) The organizers could not have foreseen somebody watching the game by climbing up a tree.
(iii) A person crazy about something must pay the price for that.
(iv) The organizers shall be liable to everybody likely to watch the game. Your decision with the reason.

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: Interfering with another's goods in such a way as to deny the latter's title to the goods amounts to conversion and it is a civil wrong.

Facts: Ram went to the bicycle stand to a park his bicycle and he found the stand fully occupied. Ram removed a few bicycles in order to rearrange the stand and make some space for his bicycle. He parked his bicycle properly and put back all the bicycles except the one belonging to Shyam. It was rather negligent on the part of Ram and he was in fact in a hurry to get into his office. Somebody came on the way and took away Shyam's cycle. The watchman of the stand did not take care of it assuming that the cycle was not parked inside the stand. Shyam filed a suit against Ram for conversion.

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 Principles:

1. Master/ Principal is vicariously liable for the tort committed by a servant/ agent, in the performance of his duties as a servant/ agent.

2. Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do or doing something which a prudent or reasonable man would not do.

Factual situation:  A patient is brought to a hospital maintained by B. The patient is to be operated upon, As a result of faulty oxygen supply, the patient dies on the operation theatre table, then DECISION:

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
1. No-fault liability means the liability of a person even without any negligent act on his part and even if he has taken due care and caution. 
2. If a person brings and keeps any dangerous thing on his land, then he is liable for any damage caused if the thing escapes. 
3. No one can be penalized for an Act of God which is unforeseeable and unpredictable. 

Factual Situation: B Owned and managed a company supplying electricity to the nearby locality. On a particular windy and stormy day, one of the wires snapped and was hanging down A, a cyclist who was driving in the night,  saw the wire from a distance. There was a nearby street light with low visibility. He came in contact with the wire and was electrocuted immediately. His heirs sued A on the ground of strict liability. Decide. DECISION:  


      Forgot password?
Use app×