Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
Principle: Whoever causes death by rash or negligent act commits an offence.
Facts: X is having a house on the roadside which is also having a street on the back of the house. He has a lawn on the back of his house where he has built a toilet. To prevent the intruders from entering his house, he got the fence charged with a high voltage live electric wire. Z was passing through the street at the backyard of the house of X and sat down to take rest near the fence. While getting up, his hands came in contact with the fence which was connected to high voltage electric wire causing his death.
Options
X has not committed any offence because he has the right to prevent trespass
X has committed an offence of causing death by rash and negligent act
X has committed no offence because he does not have any enmity with X
X has committed an offence of Murder
Advertisements
Solution
X has committed an offense of causing death by rash and negligent act
Explanation:
X has committed an offense of causing death by rash and negligent act. The act of fencing a private house with high voltage electric wires is a rash and negligent act because there is a danger of someone accidentally touching it.
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
Disagreement between the two Houses of Indian Parliament is finally resolved through
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.
Legal Principle: The Latin maxim qui facit per alium, facit per se means that he who acts through another, acts himself.
Fact Situation: Heema requests her minor sister Harika to purchase a bag for her from the local shop. Harika purchases the bag on credit telling the shop keeper that her sister will pay for it. Afterward, Heema refuses to pay for the bag.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
According to the Human Development Report 2006, India has acquired 126th place in HDI ranking which is. than that of last year.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE 'Free consent' defined as - Consent is said to free when it is not caused by
I. coercion as defined in Section 15
II. under influence, as defined in Section 16
III. fraud, as defined in Section 17, or
Iv. misrepresentation, as defined in Section 18
v. mistake, subject to the provisions of Sections 20, 21 and 22 Consent is said to be so caused when it would not have been given but for the existence of such coercion, under the influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. 'Fraud' is defined in which Section?
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.
The standard of care generally used in cases of negligence is the
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: Master/Principal is vicariously liable for the tort committed by a servant/agent, in the performance of his duties as a servant/agent.
Factual situation: A gave some cash and cheques to his friend B, who was an employee of the State Bank of India, to deposit the same in that Bank in the account of A. B misappropriated the amount. If A sues the Bank for damages, then the Bank is 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 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.
Principle: An employer is responsible for any accident loss caused to his employees, during the course of employment.
Factual Situation: Ravi Menon runs the "African Circus'. The circus has a ' night show. Two motorcyclists Rohit and Mohit rotate their motorcycles inside a big iron globe in complete darkness. And the audience, especially the children give a big clap. One day, it so happens that during the one-night show, an accident occurs inside the globe. Rohit and Mohit collide with each other and Rohit loses both his legs. His parents claim compensation from Ravi Menon, the proprietor of the circus. 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?
