Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
The railway authorities negligently allowed a train to be overcrowded. In consequence, a legitimate passenger Mr. X got his pocket picked. Choose the appropriate answer.
Options
Mr. X can sue the railway authorities for the loss suffered
Mr. X ran sue because he had given consent to travel in an overcrowded train
Mr. X cannot sue railway authorities because there was no infringement of his legal right and mere fact that the loss was caused does not give rise to a cause of action
None of the above
Solution
Mr. X cannot sue railway authorities because there was no infringement of his legal right and mere fact that the loss was caused does not give rise to a cause of action
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
Principle: An employer is liable for an injury caused by an employee in the course of employment.
Facts: 'A‘ and 'B‘ were working in a factory as unskilled laborers. A was carrying a basket of stones on his head. B was sitting on the ground. When A crossed B, all of a sudden a stone fell down from the basket and hit B on his head. B died instantaneously.
Principle: Whoever does not arrest the killer and report the matter to the concerned authorities commits an offence.
Facts: 'A', a woman, sees 'B', another woman, killing a third woman 'C'. 'A' neither attempted to arrest 'B' nor informed the concerned authorities.
Mark the best option:
In a lawsuit, an action in personam is directed towards –
Legal Principle: ‘ Audi alteram partem’ is a Latin phrase which means ‘hear the other side’. It is the principle that no person should be judged without a fair hearing.
Fact Situation: Sanjay, in Delhi, is accused of theft and brought before the Court. The magistrate discovers that Sanjay is mute.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
What kind of contact must the plaintiff prove as an element of the tort of battery?
PRINCIPLE A person is entitled to protect his property by using lawful means.
FACTS Ramlal is growing valuable vegetables and fruits on his farm and he has fenced the farm to prevent the cattle from entering into it. In addition, he has kept a ferocious dog to chase away intruding urchins and catties. Some children were playing in a nearby playground and the ball slipped into the farm. A boy running after the ball came near the fence and shouted for the ball. But when there was no response, he managed to creep into the farm to get the ball. The dog which was surreptitiously waiting attacked the boy and badly mauled him. The boy's parents filed a suit against Ramlal.
In a civil suit, the person who files suit and the person against whom the suit is filed are called
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: A person has no legal remedy for an injury caused by an act to which he has consented.
Facts: 'R', a cricket enthusiast, purchases a ticket to watch a T20 match organized by the Indian Premier League (IPL). During the match, a ball struck for six hits 'R' on his body and injures him. He sues IPL for compensation for the medical expenses.
Which of the following derivation 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:
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?
