Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Legal Principle: Parents are not liable for wrongs committed by their children unless they provide the opportunity for such wrongful acts to be committed by their children.
Fact Situation: Sunil, a minor, takes the keys to his father’s car from the tabletop where his father keeps it, drives the car on the public road and hits a pedestrian who gets injured.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
विकल्प
Since Sunil took the car without his father’s permission, his father is not liable for Sunil’s act resulting in the accident.
Sunil’s father is liable for the conduct of Sunil resulting in the accident since he left the car keys where his son could easily take it without permission.
Accidents happen despite utmost care and hence neither Sunil nor his father is liable in the instant case.
Sunil’s father is not liable since he had kept his car locked and securely deposited its keys without negligence on his tabletop.
उत्तर
Sunil’s father is liable for the conduct of Sunil resulting in the accident since he left the car keys where his son could easily take it without permission.
Explanation:
There is no general duty on the parents to keep a child under constant supervision. The duty of parents is to exercise a reasonable degree of supervision and control over the child, in view of any foreseeable danger in the activities the child was involved in at the relevant time, taking into account the age of the child and the child's propensity to meddle. parents have a bigger duty to control the young one, and a correspondingly higher liability if they fail to do so. In the case presented before us two things can be observed, firstly Sunil's father left the keys unattended within the approach of his son Sunil and secondly his son Sunil took the keys and injured a pedestrian. the mere negligence on the part of father makes him liable for the conduct of his son Sunil. Hence "Sunil’s father is liable for the conduct of Sunil resulting in the accident since he left the car keys where his son could easily take it without permission." seems most appropriate.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
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.
The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option
Principle: The concept of natural justice is against bias and for the right to a fair hearing. While the term natural justice is often retained as a general concept, and it has largely been replaced and extended by the general ‘duty to act fairly’.
Facts: ‘X’, a male employee of a company was dismissed by the employer just on the basis of a complaint by ‘Y’, a female employee of the company that ‘X’ was trying to be too friendly with her and often requested her to accompany him to the canteen. Is the dismissal of ‘X’ valid?
When goods are displayed in a shop with a price tag, it is
When the consent to the contract is caused by coercion, then under Section 19, the contract will be considered as:
Mark the best option:
Principles: An unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land, or some right over, or in connection with it, is a nuisance in law of tort.
Facts: During the scarcity of onions, long queues were made outside the defendant's shop who having a licence to sell fruits and vegetables used to sell only 1 kg of onion per ration card. The queues extended on to the highway and l also caused some obstruction to the neighboring shops. The neighboring shopkeepers filed a suit for nuisance against the defendant. which one of the following decisions will be correct in this suit?
Decide:
The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress is a more recent development than the traditional torts of trespass to the person. To which of those torts is it most closely related?
The following is not a tort described as ‘trespass to the person...
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:
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: A master shall be liable for the acts of his servants done in the course of employment.
Factual situation: PUL, a public sector undertaking, is operating a number of bus services for its employees in Pune. These buses are quite distinct in their appearance and carry the board “for PUL employees only”. M, a villager from a neighbouring state, was waiting for a regular bus in one of the bus stops in Pune. A bus belonging to PUL happened to stop nearby and a number of people got into the bus. M, without realizing that it was a PUL bus, got into the bus and soon thereafter, the bus met with an accident due to driver’s negligence. M, along with several others, was injured in the accident. M seeks to file a suit against PUL claiming damages. DECISION:
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 in 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. Generally, nuisances cannot be justified on the ground of necessity. pecuniary interest, convenience, or economic advantage to a defendant.
Facts:
Dr. Hemant had for 18 years operated a clinic and hospital for the treatment of ENT. Dr. Karan operated a renal clinic in which patients receive haemo-dialysis on the floor above Dr. Hemant’s clinic. Karan was found liable for obnoxious fumes emitting from the clinic which escaped downwards into Dr. Hemant’s clinic. Hemant, his staff and patients were found to have suffered substantial damage ranging from skin diseases, red and swollen eyes, headaches, lethargy and breathing difficulties. Decide whether Karan is liable?
