Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
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.
Options
X is a renowned social worker and he has committed no offence because his motive was good
X acted in good faith to liberate her from clutches of tradition and has hence has committed no offence
X has done the act in public and not in secrecy, therefore, had not committed any offence
X has committed an offence by use of criminal force
Advertisements
Solution
X has committed an offense by use of criminal force
Explanation:
X has committed an offense by the use of criminal force. The act has caused annoyance to the victim. Moreover, X used criminal force (using his physical power to unveil the woman) and the use of criminal force is intentional. According to the principle intentional use of criminal force and the knowledge that it would cause annoyance makes it an offense.
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option:
Principle: When a person interferes with peaceful possession of another person without the permission of the person in possession of those premises, commits trespass to land.
Facts: 'T' just walked over the land of 'P' to reach his house as it was a short cut. 'P' had displayed a notice that it is not a thoroughfare. 'P' did not cause any damage to the land.
Legal Principle: A person is liable to compensate others for harm caused by the escape of any inherently dangerous material that he keeps on his land.
Fact Situation: Ankit lights a bonfire in his courtyard to warm himself up during a cold winter evening. A strong wind suddenly blows some sparks from the fire, on to his neighbour’s house which catches fire and gets completely destroyed.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
Which of the following is not a reason for the general lack of liability for omissions in English law?
What is the Compensation Act 2006 s 1 has what purpose...
PRINCIPLE Nuisance is the interference in the enjoyment of the property.
FACTS Pizzeria, a small cafeteria selling namesake used to run a wood-fired oven. The resulting smoke caused a lot of smoke in the neighbourhood and there were a number of complaints from the locals who had not witnessed such an oven. The food inspector taking cognizance of these reports asked the restaurant to shut down the oven. The owner who had earlier ran a similar establishment in Italy did not comply. Is Pizzeria committing a nuisance?
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 master is liable for the acts of servant done in the course of employment.
FACTS A nurse was deployed for the care of an old invalid suffering a very painful and terminal illness in a hospice. A visiting doctor used to come in every week and prescribe certain medications. In order to alleviate the pain, she used to slip in certain narcotic drugs to the patient with whom she had developed a friendly relationship. The narcotics eventually reacted with the drugs of the doctor's prescription thereby inducing a fatal cardiac arrest in the patient. In a suit brought by the legal heirs of the patient, the suit shall
Rules:
A. A person is an employee of another if the mode and the manner in which he or she carries out his work is subject to control and supervision of the latter.
B. An employer is required to provide compensation to his or her employees for any injury caused by an accident arising in the course of employment. The words ‘in the course of the employment’ mean in the course of the work which the employee is contracted to do and which is incidental to it.
Facts:
Messers. Zafar Abidi and Co. (Company) manufactures bidis with the help of persons known as ‘pattadrs’. The pattadars are supplied tobacco and leaves by the Company and are required to roll them into bidis and bring the bidis back to the Company. The pattadars are free to roll the bidis either in the factory or anywhere else they prefer. They are not bound to attend the factory for any fixed number of bidis. The Company verifies whether the bidis adhere to the specified instructions or not pays the pattadars on the basis of the number of bids that are found to be of right quality. Aashish Mathew is one of the pattadars of the Company. He was hit by a car just outside the precinct of the factory while he was heading to have lunch in a nearby food-stall. Aashish Mathew has applied for compensation from the Company.
According to the facts and the rules specified, which of the following propositions is correct
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: Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, has committed an offense, which shall be punished in accordance with the law.
Facts: 'X', a truck driver, driving his vehicle rashly and negligently at a high speed climbed the footpath and hit 'Y' a pedestrian, from behind causing his death.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE:
1. Medical professionals are not immune from liability in tort on the ground of negligence.
2. Services rendered to a patient by a doctor (except when given free of charge) by way of consultation, diagnosis and treatment fall in the definition of "service" under the Consumer Protection Act, in case of negligence, the doctors are liable in tort as well as under the Consumer Protection Act.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A was the only child of his parents. Once he had a high fever and his parents called a doctor at home. This doctor used to work at a respectable hospital in Delhi. The doctor administered certain medicines and asked the nurse to stay with him for the night and administer to him a chloroquine injection. This injection was generally not suitable for young children. The nurse, without a prior test, followed instructions of the doctor and gave the injection. As a result of an allergic reaction, the child died. The parents sued the nurse and the doctor. DECISION:
