Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
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. Negligence is the absence of care on the part of one party which results in some damage to the other Party.
2. Generally, a person is under no duty to control another to prevent his doing damage to a third party.
3. The foreseeability test basically asks whether the person causing the injury should have reasonably foreseen the general consequences that would result because of his or her conduct.
4. Statutory authority implies that an act is done by a person to fulfill his duty imposed by the State. Statutory authority is a valid defence under the law of torts.
Factual Situation: Ten borstal trainees were working on an island in a harbour in the custody and under the control of three officers. During the night, seven of them escaped. It was claimed that at the time of the escape the officer's lad retired to bed. The seven got on board a yacht, moored off the island and set it in motion. They collided with another yacht, the property of X and damaged it. X sued the Home office for the amount of the damage. Decide whether, on the facts pleaded in the statement of claim the Home Office, its servants or agents owed any duty of care to X capable of giving rise to a liability in damages with respect to the detention of persons undergoing sentences of borstal training or with respect to the manner in which such persons were treated, employed, disciplined, controlled or supervised whilst undergoing such sentences.
Decision:
विकल्प
The Home office is not liable as they are performing statutory duty and have immunity from liability in negligence.
The trainees are liable and not the Home Officers as the injury to X's property could not be reasonably foreseen by the officers.
The fact that the immediate damage to the property of X was caused by the acts of third persons, the trainees, prevent the existence of a duty on the part of the officers towards X.
The taking by the trainees of the nearby yacht and the causing of damage to the other yacht which belonged to X ought to have been foreseen by the borstal officers as likely to occur if they failed to exercise proper control or supervision; in the particular circumstances, the officers prima facie owed a duty of care to X.
उत्तर
The taking by the trainees of the nearby yacht and the causing of damage to the other yacht which belonged to X ought to have been foreseen by the borstal officers as likely to occur if they failed to exercise proper control or supervision; in the particular circumstances, the officers prima facie owed a duty of care to X.
Explanation:
The taking by the trainees of the nearby yacht and the causing of damage to the other yacht which belonged to X ought to have been foreseen by the borstal officers as likely to occur if they failed to exercise proper control or supervision; in the particular circumstances, the officers prima facie owed a duty of care to X. The borstal officers are liable as the escaped trainees were under their control and because of negligence and improper control they escaped. The trainees were the responsibility of the officers.
