Question

Mark the best option:
Principle: An occupier is not normally liable to a trespasser except in respect of willful act intended to cause harm or done with reckless disregard.
Facts: Jaspal, a richman of the locality had kept a ferocious dog to guard his house. He strictly instructed all his servants not to go near that dog and there was a special attender who was to take care of the dog. There was a prominent board warning the visitors about the ferocious dog. One day, a twelve-year-old boy playing in the neighborhood, running after his ball got into the house. The dog attacked him and killed him. Jaspal was sued for damages.

पर्याय

• Jaspal is not liable, because the boy was a trespasser.

• Jaspal is not liable, because a twelve-year boy ought to have known about the presence of the ferocious dog.

• Jaspal is liable for the negligence of his servant to keep watch on such a ferocious dog during the day time.

• None of the above

Answer 1

Jaspal is not liable, because a twelve-year boy ought to have known about the presence of the ferocious dog.
Jaspal is not liable as the boy is a trespasser.