Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Principle: False imprisonment is a tort (wrong) which means the total restraint of a person's liberty without lawful justification.
Facts: A part of a public road had been closed for spectators of a boat race. 'P' wanted to enter but he was prevented by 'D' and other policemen because he had not paid the admission fee. 'P' was able to enter the enclosure by other means but was unable to go where he wanted to go. The policemen refused access to where he wanted to go but allowed him to remain where he was or to go back. 'P' remained within the enclosure and refused to leave. Subsequently, 'P' sued 'D' for false imprisonment.
विकल्प
It was a case of false imprisonment, but 'D' could not be made liable for it.
'D' could not be made liable for false imprisonment, as he did not totally restrict P's movements.
'D' could be made liable for false imprisonment, as he did restrict P's movements.
'D' could not be made liable for false imprisonment as he has not touched him.
उत्तर
'D' could not be made liable for false imprisonment, as he did not totally restrict P's movements.
Explanation:
The tort of false imprisonment is constituted when there is a total restraint. It is no imprisonment if a person prevented from going in a particular direction but he his free to go any other direction. If a man is prevented from going to a particular direction but is allowed to go back there is no false imprisonment. The reasonable conclusion in the above-noted question is that there was no total restraint on the P's liberty. The reasonable conclusion is drawn that D could not be held liable for false imprisonment and he did not restrict P' s movement is the correct answer.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Principle: Consent is a good defence for civil action in tort. But consent must include both knowledge of risk and assumption of risk, i.e, readiness to bear harm.
Facts: A lady passenger was aware that the driver of the cab, in which she opted to travel was little intoxicated. The cab met with an accident and lady got injured.
Mark the best option:
Fact: Ganesh had a ferocious dog as his pet. The dog used to terrorize people in the neighborhood by attacking the pet animals. One day the dog started attacking Bipasha’s cat on the road and followed the cat into Bipasha’s house and continued attacking her cat. Her cat was seriously wounded and was bleeding. Bipasha made several attempts to chase the dog away but it was of no use, so she got hold of a kitchen knife and inflicted a severe wound on the dog’s body. After this, the dog ran off. The dog subsequently died because of the wound. Ganesh sued Bipasha for damages saying that she should have called him for help.
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.
The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option:
Principle: Acceptance of a proposal must be absolute and unqualified.
Facts: ‘A’ made a proposal to sell his motorcycle to ‘B’ for rupees 25, 000/. ‘B’ agreed to buy it for rupees 24,000/. ‘A’ sold his motorcycle to ‘C’ for 26,000/ the next day. ‘B’ sues ‘A’ for damages.
The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option:
Principle: There are legal provisions to give authority to a person to use necessary force against an assailant or wrongdoer for the purpose of protecting one’s own body and property as also another’s body and property when immediate aid from the state machinery is not readily available; and in so doing he is not answerable in law for his deeds.
Facts: X, a rich man was taking his morning walk. Due to the threat of robbers in the locality, he was carrying his pistol also. In the opposite direction, another person was coming with a ferocious-looking dog. All of a sudden, the dog which was on a chain held by the owner, started barking at X. The owner of the dog called the dog to be calm. Th ey crossed each other without any problem. But suddenly, the dog started barking again from a distance. X immediately took out his pistol. By seeing the pistol the dog stopped barking and started walking with the owner. However, X shot at the dog which died instantly. The owner of the dog files a complaint against X, which in due course reached the Magistrate Court. X pleads the right of private defense. Decide
Legal Principle: The Latin maxim nemo bis punitur pro eodem delictomeans that nobody can be punished twice for the same offence.
Fact Situation: Sajan, a petty thief, is caught and thrashed thoroughly by the people before being handed over to the police. Sajan pleads before the magistrate that since he was already thrashed by the people he should not be again punished by the State.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
Mark the best option:
Principles: Whoever takes away anything from the land of any person without the person's consent is said to commit theft. A thing so long as it is attached to the earth is not subject to theft, but it becomes capable of being the subject of theft soon as itis severed from the earth.
Facts: Y cuts down a tree standing on the land of X with the intention of dishonestly taking the tree out of X's possession without the consent of X. But Y is yet to take away the tree out of X's possession.
Decide
In most cases, a threat of violence made over the telephone cannot constitute an assault. Which of the following most accurately explains why not?
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principles:
- 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.
- 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.
- The claimant must prove that harm would not have occurred 'but for' the negligence of the defendant. The claimant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant's breach of duty caused the harm.
Factual Situation: Amar worked for an ironworks, Luxmi Mills & Co. Ltd. operating a remotely controlled crane, Amar galvanized items by dipping them into a large tank of molten metal. In order to protect its crane operators, whose controls were located just a few feet from the tank, Luxmi Mills erected a low wall around the tank and also provided a sheet of corrugated iron that crane operators placed between themselves and the wall. The operators were not facing the tank while operating the crane. Thus, they could not see the operation of the crane and therefore relied upon signals from another worker located farther from the tank. Many other galvanizers at the time situated their operators in enclosed, windowed spaces from which they could safely see and perform their work. Luxmi Mills eventually adopted that practice as well. One day, Amar was working on the crane. At one point, he either turned toward the tank or leaned out to see the worker giving him instructions, thereby placing his head outside the iron sheet. A spray of molten metal burned Amar's lip. When it failed to heal and began to ulcerate, he consulted a doctor who diagnosed the wound as cancerous. Amar ultimately died from the spread of cancer after three years. His widow sued Luxmi Mills for negligence. Whether the employers would be liable for the full extent of the burn and cancer that had developed as a result?
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.
Select the statement that could be said to be most direct inference from specified facts:
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: Interference with another's goods in such a way as to deny the latter's title to the goods amounts to conversion, and thus it is a civil wrong. It is an act intentionally done inconsistent with the owner's right, though the doer may not know of, or intend to challenge, the property or possession of the true owner.
Facts: y or possession of the true owner. Facts: 'R' went to a cycle-stand to park his bicycle. Seeing the stand fully occupied, he removed a few bicycles in order to rearrange a portion of the stand and make some space for his bicycle. He parked his bicycle properly, and put back all the bicycles except the one belonging to 'S', In fact, 'R' was in a hurry, and therefore, he could not put back S's bicycle. Somebody came on the way and took away S's bicycle. The watchman of the stand did not take care of it assuming that the bicycle was not parked inside the stand. 'S' filed a suit against 'R' for conversion. Which of the following derivations is correct?
