Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option:
Principle: Negligence is actionable in law. In simple terms, negligence is the failure to take proper care over something.
Facts: A, a doctor, conducted a hysterectomy sincerely on B and left a small cotton swab inside the abdomen. As a consequence of which B developed some medical problems and had to undergo another surgery. Is A liable?
Options
A is not liable as he did not foresee any consequences at the ti me of surgery.
As only a small swab was left in the abdomen, there was no negligence.
A is liable for the negligence as he failed to take proper care during the surgery
Liability for negligence does not arise here as a performed the operation sincerely.
Solution
A is liable for the negligence as he failed to take proper care during the surgery.
Explanation:
A is liable for the negligence as he failed to take proper care during the surgery. It was the duty of the doctor A to ensure the utmost safety of his patient B during the surgery.
Forgetting a cotton swab inside the abdomen caused medical problems. A doctor is liable under negligence.
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
Principle: Inducing any animal to move or to change its motion and thereby intentionally causing fear of injury or annoyance to others by such act, is an offence of use of criminal force.
Facts: X incites his dog to chase and run after his neighbour Y, to teach Y to stay away from him. The act is done without neighbour‘ consent and against his will
The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option
Principle: The concept of natural justice is against bias and for the right to a fair hearing. While the term natural justice is often retained as a general concept, and it has largely been replaced and extended by the general ‘duty to act fairly’.
Facts: ‘X’, a male employee of a company was dismissed by the employer just on the basis of a complaint by ‘Y’, a female employee of the company that ‘X’ was trying to be too friendly with her and often requested her to accompany him to the canteen. Is the dismissal of ‘X’ valid?
The Law of the contract is different from the law of tort in which way...?
The question contains some basic principles and fact situations in which these basic principles have to be applied. A list of probable decisions and reasons are given.
Principles:
1. A master shall be liable for the fraudulent acts of his servants committed in the course of employment.
2. Whether an act is committed in the course of employment has to be judged in the context of the case.
3. Both master and third parties must exercise reasonable care in this regard.
Facts:
Rama Bhai was an uneducated widow and she opened a'S.B. account with Syndicate Bank with the help of her nephew by name Keshav who was at that time working as a clerk in the Bank. 'Keshav used to deposit the money of Rama Bhai from time to time' and get the entries done in the passbook. After a year or so, Keshav was dismissed from the service by the Bank. Being unaware of this fact, Rama Bhai continued to hand over her savings to him and Keshav misappropriated them. Rama Bhai realized this only when Keshav disappeared from, the scene one day and she sought compensation from the Bank.
Possible Decisions
(a) Syndicate Bank shall be liable to compensate Rama Bhai.
(b) Syndicate Bank shall not be liable to compensate Rama Bhai.
(c) Rama Bhai cannot blame others for her negligence.
Possible Reasons
(i) Keshav was not an employee of the Bank when the fraud" was committed.
(ii) The Bank was not aware of the special arrangement between Rama Bhai and Keshay.
(iii) It is the Bank's duty to take care of vulnerable customers.
(iv) Rama Bhai should have checked about Keshav in her own interest. Your decision with the reason
Principle: A person is liable for all the injurious consequences of his careless act.
Facts: Ram, a snake charmer, was exhibiting his talents to a group of people. One of the snakes escaped and bit a child who had to be hospitalized for two days for treatment.
Assertion (A): In the event of a violation of any legal right (tort) the aggrieved party is entitled to recover damages as determined by the court.
Reason (R): The object of awarding damages to the aggrieved party is to put him in the same position in which he would have been in the wrong would not have been committed. Damages are, therefore, assessed on that basis.
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: Master/Principal is vicariously liable for the tort committed by a servant/agent, in the performance of his duties as a servant/agent.
Factual situation: The plaintiff a bullion merchant was arrested by the police on a charge of purchasing stolen goods. Some of the gold and silver ornaments were seized for the plaintiff and were kept in the police station custody. The duty constable appropriated the gold ornaments and escaped to a foreign country. The plaintiff after being acquitted brought an action against the State for the compensation. In this case, compensation is DECISION:
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 Principles:
1. Joint tort-feasters means joint wrongdoers. People can be joint tortfeasors in case of common action in fact or in law.
2. Joint tort-feasters are jointly and severally liable.
Factual situation: Two dogs belonging to two different owners acting in concert attacked a flock of sheep and injured several sheep. In an action for damages brought against the owners of the dogs. If one of them puts a defene claiming that he was liable for one half only of the damage, then which one of the following statements is legally sustainable in the above case? DECISION:
Define vicarious liability.
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?
