Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Legal Principle: Negligence is the absence of care by one party which results in some damage to another. Damage is an essential ingredient to constitute a tort of negligence.
Fact Situation: Mistry left his ladder on the public road while unloading it from a truck when he went to open the shutters of his shop. Saini who was riding his motorcycle had to swerve hard to avoid hitting the ladder as he came with speed on the road. Saini fell down but was miraculously not injured.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
पर्याय
Mistry is not liable for the tort of negligence since Saini was not injured though he fell down.
Mistry is liable for the tort of negligence since Saini fell down due to the presence of the ladder.
Mistry is not liable for the tort of negligence since Saini was speeding on the road.
Mistry is liable for the tort of negligence since he was careless in leaving the ladder on the road.
उत्तर
Mistry is liable for the tort of negligence since Saini fell down due to the presence of the ladder.
Explanation:
Negligent torts are not deliberate actions, but instead, present when an individual or entity fails to act as a reasonable person to someone whom he or she owes a duty to. The negligent action found in this particular tort leads to a personal injury or monetary damages. Thus the two major essentials of tort are (a) negligence and (b) damage or injury.
Facts of the case presented before us mention that Saini who was riding a motorcycle fell down due to Mistry's negligence even though he did not get injured, DAMAGE was caused to his motorcycle, clothes, time, etc. Thus we can easily conclude that "Mistry is liable for the tort of negligence since Saini fell down due to the presence of the ladder." is the most appropriate statement.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Who is an Ombudsman?
Which of the following is not a reason for the general lack of liability for omissions in English law?
Andrew throws a baseball towards Barry, with whom he is playing pitch and catch. Andrew’s aim is bad and the ball hits Cassandra, who is walking nearby.
Alexander and Alexandra have consensual sex. Alexander knows that he has the sexually transmitted disease genital herpes but he does not tell Alexandra. She later contracts herpes. Which of the following most accurately states the likely outcome if Alexandra sues Alexander in the tort of battery?
Which one of the following interests are not protected by the law of tort?
What the Injuries Board is...
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principles:
- 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.
- 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 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.
- A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would likely to injure his neighbour.
- The foreseeability of the type of damage is a pre-requisite of liability in actions of nuisance.
Factual Situation: During 2011, a European Directive was issued requiring nations of the European Community to establish standards on the presence of Perchloroethene (PCE) in water, which the Kingsland did in 2013. Alfa Water Co. purchased a borehole in 2007 to extract water to supply to the public in Kingsland. In 2014, it tested the water to ensure that it met minimum standards for human consumption and discovered that it was contaminated with an organochlorine solvent (PCE). On investigation, it emerged that the solvent seeped into the soil through the building floor of the Light & Soft Leather Tannery, about 3 miles from the borehole that eventually contaminated the Alfa's borehole. Since the tannery opened in 191 O, until 2007, the solvent it used had been delivered in 40-gallon drums which were transported by forklift truck and then tipped into a sump. Since 2007, solvents had been delivered in bulk and stored in tanks. It was then piped to the tanning machinery. There was no evidence of any spills from the tanks or pipes, and it was concluded that the water had been contaminated by frequent spills under the earlier system. Alfa Water brought a claim against the Tannery on the grounds of nuisance.
Whether the Tannery owners are liable?
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
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: In a civil action for defamation, the truth of the defamatory matter is an absolute defense. However, the burden of proving truth is on the defendant; and he is liable if he does not successfully discharge this burden.
Facts: 'D' who was the editor of a local weekly, published a series of articles mentioning that 'P', who was a government servant, issued false certificates, accepted bribe, adopted corrupt and illegal means to mint money and was a 'mischief monger'. 'P' brought a civil action against 'D', who could not prove the facts published by him.
Under the circumstances, which of the following derivations is correct?
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?
