Principle: Negligence is committed when there is a breach of duty of care and it results in damage to his neighbor.
A neighbor is a person who is likely to be affected by negligent act of the tortfeasor.
Facts: Rohit bought a Coca Cola bottle from Shreshth’s shop. Back at home, the server opened the bottle and poured the drink into the glasses of Rohit and his friend Tushar. As Tushar started drinking, he felt irritation in his throat. Immediately, Rohit and Tushar took the sample to test and found nitric acid in the content. Rohit filed a suit against Shreshth, Coca Cola company and the bottler, Kishen and Co.
(a) Rohit cannot get compensation
(b) Tushar can get compensation
(c) Both Rohit and Tushar can get compensation
i) Shreshth did not know the contents of sealed bottle.
ii) Rohit did not actually suffer though he bought the bottle.
iii) Tushar did not buy the bottle.
iv) Coca Cola company is responsible since it supplied the concentrate.
v) Kishen & Co, is responsible since it added water, sugar, etc., and sealed the bottle.
vi) Shreshth is responsible for selling the defective product.
Choose the correct match:
(A) (a) (ii)
(B) (b) (vi)
(C) (c) (v)
(D) (c) (iv)
C is the correct answer. Here, Rohit and Tushar are affected by a breach of duty on part of the bottler and manufacturer. Option A is incorrect because it does not matter who drank the contents of the bottle. Both are the neighbours in this case. And there was negligence and hence liability.
1. A person is liable for negligence, if he fails to take care of his neighbour’s interest.
2. A neighbour is anyone whose interests should have been foreseeable by a reasonable man while carrying on his activities.
A cricket match was going on in a closed door stadium. A cricket fan who could not get into the stadium was watching the game by climbing up a nearby tree and sitting there. The cricket ball in the course of the game went out of the stadium and hit this person and injured him. He filed a suit against the organizers.
(a) The organizers are liable to compensate the injured person.
(b) The organizers are not liable to compensate the injured person’
(c) The injured person should have avoided the place where he might be hit by the cricket ball.
i) The organizers are responsible for the people inside the stadium.
ii) The organizers could not have foreseen somebody watching the game by climbing up a tree.
iii) A person crazy about something must pay the price for that.
iv) The organizers shall be liable to everybody likely to watch the game.
(A) (a) (iv)
(B) (a) (iii)
(C) (b) (ii)
(D) (c) (i)
C is the correct option. Self explanatory.
When the master is held liable for the wrongful act of his servant, the liability is called
(a) Strict liability (b) Vicarious liability
(c) Tortous liability (d) Absolute liability
(b) is the correct option. Strict liability is when a person has limited defences as he is carrying out an imminently dangerous act. Tortous liability is when a person is liable for the tort committed by him. Absolute liability is when there are no defences available at all
The act of unlawfully entering into another’s property constitutes
(a) Trespass (b) Restraint
(c) Appropriation (d) Encroachment
Option (a) is correct. Restraint is when a person is not allowed to go in a particular direction.
A party to the suit is called
(a) Accused (b) Plaintiff
(c) Litigant (d) Complainant
Answer is (c). Accused is the person against whom the charges are laid down. He may or may not be guilty of the crime. Plaintiff is the injured party in a lawsuit. Complainant is the person who registers the complaint.
Every duty enforceable by law is called
(a) Accountability (b) Obligation
(c) Burden (d) Incidence
(b) is correct. Obligation is a duty enforceable by law and when one does not perform his obligation, a tort is committed.
Principle: Every person has a right to defend his own person, property or possession against an immediate harm, and to that end, may use reasonable amount of force.
Fact: Mr. K K was passing by Mrs. Manika’s house. At that time, Mrs. Manika’s dog ran out and bit Mr. K k.’s overcoat. Mr. K.k. turned around and raised the pistol when the dog was running away. Mr. K.k. knew that the dog had attacked so many other people in that locality of Jammu. Mrs. Manika claims that her dog was of a rare breed and it was worth Rs.5000/- She is planning to bring a legal action against Mr. K.k. for compensation. Decide.
(a) She will succeed in getting compensation from Mr. K.k. because he killed the dog, which was not actually attacking him at the time of shooting.
(b) She will not succeed because Mr. K.k. was justified in shooting the dog to protect himself.
(c) She will not succeed because Mr. K.k. took the action to protect himself as well as many other members of public in future.
(d) None of the above
Option (a) is correct. (b) is incorrect because at that time there was no dnger when he shot the dog as it was already running away. You cannot commit a wrong ( say murder a thief and say that I did it for the public good.) and then take up the defence that it was in public good.
Mrs. Manika would succeed because Mr. K.k. shot at the dog when it was running away and there was no immediate threat to him. Secondly, he has used excess force to thwart the animal
Principle: “Volenti non fit injuria”, a well-established legal principle, means that a person has no legal remedy for the injury caused by an act which he has consented.
Fact: An old lady was walking in a narrow one-way lane in the opposite direction. It was nighttime and there was no street lighting. A car moving in right direction but without headlights knocked her down since the driver could not see her. She filed a suit against the driver.
a) She would lose, because she violated the traffic rules in the first instance.
b) She would lose, because she voluntarily exposed herself to risks.
c) The driver would lose, because he drove without proper headlights.
d) None of the above
(c) is correct as the lady was walking on a one way lane and as such there are no traffic rules applicable to pedestrians. Now, the car driver was driving his car without headlights, which is a gross violation on his part. Therefore, he is liable to the old lady because had he driven the car with headlights on, he could have averted the collision. The Docttrine of last opportunity applies here.
Principle : The occupier of a premise owes a duty of care to all his invitees and visitors.
Factual situation : Laloo was running a dairy from his house. People used a part of his farm as shortcut to get to a nearby railway station. Laloo who did not approve of this, put up a notice that “Trespassers will be prosecuted”. However since a number of these people were also his customers he tolerated them. One day a person who was using this short cut was attacked by a bull belonging to the farm. The injured person filed a suit against him.
(a) Laloo is not liable in view of the clear notice against tresspassers
(b) Laloo is liable for having kept a bull on his farm
(c) Laloo is liable because in fact he allowed the people to use his premises
(d) Laloo, is not liable to the people other than customers
(c) is the answer. When you allow a certain thing to happen for a certain time it just means that you consented to it. Here, it seems Laloo consented and so when a person gets injured on his premises, he will be held liable.
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 called trespass;
whereas if the interference is consequential it amounts to nuisance.
Facts: Pragya loves playing rock music in a very loud volume almost everyday and the entire neighbourhood enjoys it a lot except for Priya. Priya files a cases against Pragya for nuisance and claims damages.Decide.
(a) Pragya is liable for nuisance.
(b) Priya is sensitive and so Pragya should not be liable because everyone else enjoys it.
(c) Pragya is not liable because it is not to play loud rock music.
(d) None of the above.
(a) Is the correct option. Pragya is liable because her act amounts amounts to nuisance and even if the other members in the neighbourhood are liking it it does not matter. Priya can claim compensation.