Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
Principle: Nothing is an offense if it is done under intoxication and the person committing the offense was incapable to understand the nature of the Act. Intoxication should be without the knowledge or against the will of the person.
Facts: A, B and C were having a party in Bar where A persuaded B and C to take alcoholic drinks. On the persistent persuasion B and C also consumed alcohol along with A. B and C had never consumed alcohol before. After intoxication, there was some argument between B and C where C pushed B with full force causing serious injury to B.
Options
C is liable
C is not liable because he was intoxicated
A is liable because A pursuaded them to consume alcohol whereas they had never consumed alcohol
A and C both are liable
Advertisements
Solution
C is liable
Explanation:
According to the principle, a person under intoxication is not liable for an offence if intoxication is without his knowledge or against his will. In this case, C had the knowledge of his intoxication and it happened with his consent. In other words, C was persuaded, not forced to drink.
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
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.
Mark the best option:
Facts: Manish finds a gold watch lying on the road next to his house. He puts the watch in his pocket and returns home. Has Manish committed theft?
Principle: Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent moves that property in order to take it, is said to commit theft.
Alexander and Alexandra have consensual sex. Alexander knows that he has the sexually transmitted disease genital herpes but he does not tell Alexandra. She later contracts herpes. Which of the following most accurately states the likely outcome if Alexandra sues Alexander in the tort of battery?
Which one of the following groups are required by law to be insured?
According to SEBI norms, a person found guilty of indulging in unfair trade practices shall be liable to a penalty of
- Rs. 25 crore
- Three times the amount of profits made out of such practices, .....
The correct answer is :
A person is said to be vicariously liable when
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 Master is liable to third persons for every such wrong of his servant as committed in the course of service. For acts committed beyond the scope of employment, the master is liable only if he has expressly authorised the act.
A owned a bus and he had hired B to drive it and C to be the conductor. One day, when B had stepped out of the bus to have a cup of coffee. C decided to turn the bus around so that it was ready for its next trip. While doing so, C ran over D's leg, causing major injuries to him. D sued A 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. A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would be likely to injure his neighbor.
3. The foreseeability of the type of damage is a prerequisite of liability in actions of nuisance
Facts:
Bharat Sugar Ltd. operated a sugar refinery on the bank of the river Ravi. They had a jetty from which raw sugar would be offloaded from barges and refined sugar would be taken. The sugar would be taken by larger vessels and then transferred to smaller barges to enable them to get through the shallow waters. As part of development, Bharat Sugar Ltd. wished to construct a new jetty and dredge the water to accommodate the larger vessels. At the same time, the State was constructing new ferry terminals. The design of the ferry terminals was such that it caused the siltation of the channels. After using the channels for a short while, Bharat Sugars’ larger vessels were no longer able to use them. Further dredging at the cost of ₹ 7,50,000 was required to make the channel and jetties usable by the vessels. Bharat Sugar Ltd. brought an action in nuisance to recover the cost of the extra dredging. Is the State liable?
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer:
Legal Principles:
The tort of negligent misstatement is defined as an inaccurate statement made honestly but carelessly usually in the form of advice given by a party with special skill/knowledge to a party that doesn’t possess this skill or knowledge.
Facts:
X and Y Co. were advertising agents placing contracts on behalf of a client on credit terms, X and Y Co. would be personally liable should the client default. To protect themselves, the X and Y asked their bankers to obtain a credit reference from K and L, the client’s bankers. The reference (given both orally and then in writing) was given gratis and was favorable, but also contained an exclusion clause to the effect that the information was given ‘without responsibility on the part of this Bank or its officials’. X and Y relied upon this reference and subsequently suffered financial loss when the client went into liquidation. X and Y sued K and L Co. for negligence, claiming that the information was given negligently and was misleading. K and L argued there was no duty of care owed regarding the statements. Decide.
