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?
पर्याय
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
"No action lies against the Government for injury done to an individual in the course of exercise of its sovereign functions". All of the following actions are covered by the above provision, except
Principle: A person, who is usually of unsound mind, but occasionally normal, may make a contract when he is not of unsound mind.
Facts: 'A' generally remains in the state of unsound mind and rarely becomes capable of understanding the things.
The Government of India is planning to open Rail Link between Sealdah to Devpura. Devpura is located in –
If a person is enjoying the benefits of a lawful no gratuitous act of another, then he/she:
PRINCIPLE An owner of land has the right to use the land in any manner he or she desires. The owner of the land also owns the space above and the depths below it.
FACTS Ramesh owns an acre of land on the outskirts of Sullurpeta, Andhra Pradesh. The Government of India launches its satellites into space frequently from Sriharikota, near Sullurpeta. The Government of India does not deny that once the satellite launch has travelled the distance of almost 7000 kilometres it passes over Ramesh's property. Ramesh files a case claiming that the Government of India has violated his property rights by routing its satellite over his property, albeit 7000 kilometers directly above it.
Applying the principle to the case you would decide
Principle: A Master is liable to third persons for every such wrong of his servant as committed in the course of service. For acts committed beyond the scope of employment, the master is liable only if he has expressly authorised the act.
A owned a bus and he had hired B to drive it and C to be the conductor. One day, when B had stepped out of the bus to have a cup of coffee. C decided to turn the bus around so that it was ready for its next trip. While doing so, C ran over D's leg, causing major injuries to him. D sued A for damages.
Principle: A citizen is expected to take 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.
Which one of the following is correct?
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: Trespass to land means direct interference with the possession of land without lawful justification. Trespass could be committed either by a person himself entering the land of another person or doing the same through some tangible object(s).
Facts: 'A' throws some stones upon his neighbor's (B's) premises. Which of the following derivations is correct?
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?
