Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Principles:
- An independent contractor is one who is employed to do some work of his employer. He is engaged under a contract for services. He undertakes to produce a given result, and in the actual execution of the work, he is not under the direct control or following directions of his employer. He may use his own discretion in execution of the work assigned.
- In general, an employer is not liable for the torts (wrongful acts) of his independent contractor. But, the employer may be held liable if he directs him to do some careless acts.
Facts: Ramesh hired a taxicab to go to Delhi Airport. As he started late from his home, he kept on urging the taxidriver to drive at a high speed and driver followed the directions; and ultimately due to high speed an accident took place causing injuries to a person.
पर्याय
Ramesh would not be held liable for damages because the driver was an independent contractor and not his servant.
Ramesh would not be liable as car was not owned by him.
Ramesh would be held liable for damages as he exercised the control by giving directions to the driver
Ramesh would not be held liable for damages because Ramesh did not know the consequences of such rash driving.
उत्तर
Ramesh would be held liable for damages as he exercised the control by giving directions to the driver
Explanation:
Where a servant having a lawful authority to do some act on behalf of his master an erroneous and excessive force that causes authority causing loss to the plaintiff, the master will be liable for the act. In this reasonable conclusion drawn Ramesh would be held liable as he exercised the control by giving directions to the driver.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Principle: Civil Suit can be filed where the defendant resides or carries on business or where the cause of action arises.
Facts: An agreement is signed and executed in New Delhi between A and B for the supply of goods wherein B is to supply goods to be delivered at New Dehli to a client of A. A carries on business at Haryana and B carries on Business in UP. The civil suit by 'B‘ for payment of consideration can be filed against 'A‘ at
Principle: Nothing is an offense by reason of any harm it may cause to another person if it is done in good faith and for the benefit of that person even without that person‘s consent.
Facts: A is attacked by a Lion and Lion drags him while he is crying for help. B, a passer-by picks up A‘s gun in good faith and fires at Lion which injures A. B has never used the gun before.
Principle: Everyone has the right of private defense to defend his body and property by use of reasonable force unless that person had time to have recourse to the protection of public authorities.
Facts: X receives information at 5.00 pm that Y along with few friends are planning to burn his crop at midnight which is ready to be harvested. He does not inform the village Police Station which was just one kilometer away. He gathers his family members and directs them to collect some weapons in the form of swords and lathis to protect his field/crop. At around 11.00 pm Y and his aides attack the crop and a severe fight ensues wherein Y is seriously injured.
Principle:
1. Wagering agreements are void.
2. Collateral agreements to wagering contracts are valid.
Facts: XYZ Bank lends Rs. 40, 000 to Sabu in order to enable him to award as a prize to Randeep who is the winner of horse race. Later Sabu refuses to pay the prize stating that horse racing is wagering agreement. Can XYZ Bank recover money from Sabu?
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?
Principle: A person who commits an unlawful act towards another which can be imputed to him, must repair the damage which the other person suffers as a consequence thereof.
Facts: Mr. Rajender Singh was riding his scooter on the right side of the road which is illegal as per the Traffic Rules. Mr. Rajesh Chawla was driving his car in the opposite direction. The two vehicles collided and resulted in loss of Rs. 50,000/- to Mr. Rajender Singh. This includes his medical expenses and damage to the scooter. In this accident, there is no fault on the part of Mr. Rajesh Chawla.
Principle: The standard to determine whether a person has been guilty of negligence is the standard of care which, in the given circumstances, a reasonable man could have foreseen.
Facts: The Agricultural University constructed 200 houses for its employees in its premises. Two huge bore wells were sunk and motors were installed. They did not cover the pump rooms properly. A child, 6 years old, from one of the quarters, was playing near the pumphouse. On hearing the noise of the pump, she was curious to see the motor. She touched the motor that was not covered properly and three of her fingers were cut.
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: Nuisance is an unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land or some right over or in connection with it. If the interference is 'direct', the wrong is trespass; whereas, if the interference is 'consequential', it amounts to a nuisance.
Facts: 'A' plants a tree on his land. However, he allows of its branches to project over the land of 'B'. 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: 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?
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: Everybody is under a legal obligation to take reasonable care to avoid act or omission which he can foresee would injure his neighbor, the neighbour for this purpose is any person whom he should have in his mind as likely to be affected by his act.
Factual situation: Krish, while driving a car at a high speed in a crowded road, knocked down a cyclist. The cyclist died on the spot with a lot of blood spilling around, Lekha, a pregnant woman passing by, suffered from a nervous shock, leading’ to abortion. Lekha filed a suit against Krishnan claiming damages. DECISION:
