0

Torts Reasoning - 2

Description: Torts Reasoning - 2
Number of Questions: 12
Created by:
Tags: Torts Reasoning - 2 Law of Tort
Attempted 0/11 Correct 0 Score 0

Directions: Go through the problem and encircle the most appropriate answer.

The occupier of a premise owes a duty of care to all his invitees and visitors. Sakalchand who was owning a big house, with a compound wall, constructed an underground tank to store water. This was covered by gunny bags since the work was not complete. The post-man who came inside to deliver a registered letter fell into this tank and got hurt. It may be noted that there was a box outside the compound wall, wherein all the mails could have been deposited. The post man filed a suit against Sakalchand claiming compensation.

  1. Sakalchand is not liable, because he did not invite the postman to his house.

  2. Sakalchand is not liable, because it was for the postman to take care of himself.

  3. Sakalchand is liable, because the postman came into the premises in the course of his duty.


Correct Option: C
Explanation:

 The occupier of a premise owes a duty of care to all his invitees and visitors.  The post man may not be an invitee but is a legitimate visitor.

Directions: Go through the problem and encircle the most appropriate answer.

Interfering with another’s goods in such a way as to deny the latter’s title to the goods amounts to conversion and it is a civil wrong. Ram went to the bicycle stand a park his bicycle and he found the stand fully occupied. Ram removed a few bicycles in order to rearrange 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 Shyam. It was rather negligent on the part of Ram and he was in fact in a hurry to get into his office. Somebody came on the way and took away Shyam’s cycle. The watchman of the stand did not take care of it assuming that the cycle was not parked inside the stand. Shyam field a suit against Ram for conversion.

  1. Shyam would succeed because Ram’s act led to the stealing of his bicycle.

  2. Shyam would not succeed, because Ram did not take away the bicycle himself.

  3. Ram would not be held responsible for the negligence of the watchman.


Correct Option: A
Explanation:

 Since, interfering with another’s goods in such a way as to deny the latter’s title to the goods amounts to conversion and it is a civil wrong.hence, Shyam would succeed because Ram’s act led to the stealing of his bicycle.

Directions: Go through the problem and encircle the most appropriate answer.

A person has no remedy against an injury caused by an act to which he has consented. Ram was in a hurry to get to the airport to catch a plane and he hired a taxi run by Capital Taxi Company, well–known in that locality. Rani asked the driver fast. In the city zone, there was a speed limit of 60 km per hour and the driver, rather reluctantly, drove quite fast at time 90 km per hour to reach the airport in time. As a result, the driver lost control and hit an obstacle and Ram was badly injured. Ram field a suit against the Taxi Company.

  1. The Taxi Company would not be liable since Ram asked the driver to drive fast.

  2. The Taxi Company would be liable, because the driver ought not to have exceeded the speed limit.

  3. The Taxi Com any would be liable, because “driving fast” should only mean driving within the speed limits prescribed by law.


Correct Option: B
Explanation:

The Taxi Company would be liable, because the driver ought not to have exceeded the speed limit. As, there was a speed limit of 60 km per hour in the city zone and the driver, rather reluctantly, drove quite fast at time 90 km per hour to reach the airport in time.

Directions: Go through the problem and encircle the most appropriate answer.

A right of action cannot arise out of an illegal activity. A and B were thieves engaged in stealing cars and other vehicles. Once they stole a car; and while driving off, they had to cross a city. They engaged a driver to drive them through the city, since they did not know the route inside. The indicator lamp of the car was not working and the thieves had not realized this, and therefore, had not told about it to the driver. While driving, through the city, the car was hit by another vehicle because of the faulty indicator. In the accident the driver was injured and he filed a suit against A and B.

  1. The driver would lose, because he was driving a stolen.

  2. The driver would win, because he was not a party to the stealing.

  3. The driver would win, because he did not know anything about the stealing.


Correct Option: B
Explanation:

Had the driver been part of the stealing, this would have been a case of the driver's right of action arising out of the illegal activity of theft.

Directions: Go through the problem and encircle the most appropriate answer.

Principle: The owner of immovable property is entitled to the column of airspace above the surface. However, the owner’s right to air and space above his land is restricted to such height as is necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of his land and the structures on it. Facts: Galaxy Cable TV Network Company is providing cable connections to their customers. One of the cables passes over the house of Mr. Vasanth Bhat. He is not a customer of the Network Company. The cable is neither attached to his house nor to any projection thereof. It is at a distance of 20 feet above the terrace of Mr. Bhat’s two storeyed house. Because of the cable, Mr. Bhat’s son Sachin is unable to fly a kite from the terrace. Mr. Bhat requested the Network Company to change the position of the cable. But the company did not bother to change it. One evening Mr. Bhat cut the cable and cleared the airspace above his house. The Network company suffered a loss of about Rs. 1000/-. They bring a legal action against Mr. Bhat for recovery of loss suffered.

  1. The Network Company will succeed because the cable was not interfering with the ordinary use and enjoyment of Mr. Bhat’s property.

  2. The Network Company will not succeed because Mr. Bhat has every right to ensure proper enjoyment of his property by removing objects causing trespass in the air above his property to a reasonable extent.

  3. The Network Company will succeed because laying succables is widely practiced in all cities like electricity and telephone wires.


Correct Option: A
Explanation:

 Since, the owner’s right to air and space above his land is restricted to such height as is necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of his land and the structures on it. Therefore, the Network Company will succeed because the cable was not interfering with the ordinary use and enjoyment of Mr. Bhat’s property.

Directions: Go through the problem and encircle the most appropriate answer.

A person is liable for the harm caused by his activity only to the extent he could have foreseen the damage. Murthy was in a hurry to get into the train about to move. There was tremendous rush in the railway station. In the process of gaining entry, he accidentally pushed another passenger, carrying a load on his head. That other passenger fell down ; and sharp instruments, contained in his head load fell out and injured several people. A suit was filed against Murthy seeking compensation for the injury caused to the people.

  1. Murthy is not liable, since he did not intend to push the passenger.

  2. Murthy is not liable, since he could not have foreseen such a bloody consequence, out of his struggle to gain entry into the train.

  3. Murthy is liable, because he ought to have foreseen the passengers, carrying various kinds of luggage with them.


Correct Option: B
Explanation:

He was wrong in rushing in the packed railway station and causing another passenger to fall, but he could not have foreseen bumping into someone carrying sharp instruments.

Directions: Given below is a statement of principle, followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts and select the most appropriate answer among three alternatives given. Encircle your choice and explain why you think your answer is correct in not more than 3 to 4 lines. If it exceeds 4 lines, then penalty may be imposed.

Principle: No legal remedy exists for an injury caused by an act, for which one has consented. Facts: Vijay, a cricket enthusiast, purchases a ticket to watch the one day International Cricket Match between India and Australia, organized by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). As he is absorbed in watching the exploits of Sachin Tendulkar, a ball struck for a six by the latter hits Vijay on his body and injures him. Vijay sues BCCI for reimbursement of the medical bill he paid for treatment of the injury.

  1. Vijay should be compensated as he purchased the ticket to get entertainment and not to get injured.

  2. Vijay would lose as he voluntarily exposed himself to the risk.

  3. BCCI is liable as it did not ensure that the spectators were protected from the risks of such injuries.


Correct Option: B
Explanation:

(2) this is classic case of volenti non fit injuria, i.e. voluntary taking of risk. Since Vijay has voluntarily taken the risk that come with attending a cricket match, he cannot expect BCCI to compensate him for any injuries arising out of the same.

Directions: Given below is a statement of principle, followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts and select the most appropriate answer among three alternatives given. Encircle your choice and explain why you think your answer is correct in not more than 3 to 4 lines. If it exceeds 4 lines, then penalty may be imposed.

Principle: In a contract of agency, no liability exists upon the agent towards his Principal (Master), if he acts with reasonable diligence in the matter of agency. Facts: Ganesh, the owner of an estate, instructed Dinesh, an estate agent to find a buyer for his estate. Dinesh, got an offer from Krishna Bhat to buy the estate for Rs. 9,50,000/- and the same was promptly communicated to Ganesh. Before the contract of sale was concluded, the agent got an offer of Rs. 10,25,000/- from Dayanand. Dinesh did not communicate this information to Ganesh. The latter brings an action over the former for not having performed his function as an agent.

  1. Dinesh is not liable to Ganesh as his job was only to find a buyer and no more.

  2. Dinesh is not liable to Ganesh as he got good price for the estate which, under the prevailing market conditions, was a bonanza.

  3. Dinesh is liable to Ganesh as he did not completely perform the function of an agent.


Correct Option: C
Explanation:

(3) it is clear from the facts that in order to have performed his duties as an agent diligently, Dinesh should have informed Ganesh of the subsequent offer as well, especially,since the same was in terms more favourable to the principal.

Directions: Given below is a statement of principle, followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts and select the most appropriate answer among three alternatives given. Encircle your choice and explain why you think your answer is correct in not more than 3 to 4 lines. If it exceeds 4 lines, then penalty may be imposed.

Principle: A careless person becomes liable for his negligence when he owned a duty of care to others. Facts: As the bus was leaving the platform, Basappa rushed and boarded the bus keeping the door open. Beerappa, who was standing at the edge of the platform, was hit by the door of the moving bus and injured. Beerappa takes Basappa to court demanding monetary compensation.

  1. Basappa is liable to Beerappa for not having taken care to close the door of the moving bus.

  2. Basappa is not liable to Beerappa, as it was the duty of the conductor of the bus to close the door.

  3. Basappa is not liable to Beerappa, as it was the duty of the latter to take sufficient care, while standing on the platform, as not to expose oneself to such accidental harm.


Correct Option: A
Explanation:

 Basappa is liable to Beerappa for not having taken care to close the door of the moving bus, as a careless person becomes liable for his negligence when he owned a duty of care to others.

Directions: Given below is a statement of principle, followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts and select the most appropriate answer among three alternatives given. Encircle your choice and explain why you think your answer is correct in not more than 3 to 4 lines. If it exceeds 4 lines, then penalty may be imposed.

Principle 1: A person defames another if he states anything which exposes the other to hatred or ridicule or results in him being shunned by others or injures him in his trade, business or profession. Principle 2: To commit the offence of defamation, there must be communication of defamatory statement to a third party. Fact: A, a patient of B, is dissatisfied with the treatment. He discontinues the treatment and after sometime leaves the city. Sometime after his illness was automatically cured by lapse of time. A was upset because B had made him spend a lot of money on his illness which was cured on its own. He writes a letter accusing B for cheating. He alleges that B magnified the effects of the illness, deliberately treated him in a manner so that it persisted and also caused deterioration of his health. The letter is shown B to his lawyer. In consultation with the lawyer B files a suit for damages against A for defamation.

  1. A has defamed B and is liable to pay compensation.

  2. A has defamed B when the letter was seen by the lawyer and therefore the compensation has to be paid.

  3. A has not defamed B.


Correct Option: C
Explanation:

(3) because here the communication to B's lawyer has been carried out by B himself and not A, as is the requirement for defamation.

Directions: Given below is a statement of principle, followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts and select the most appropriate answer among three alternatives given. Encircle your choice and explain why you think your answer is correct in not more than 3 to 4 lines. If it exceeds 4 lines, then penalty may be imposed.

Principle 1: A doctor is to keep the information given by the patient in strict confidence and cannot provide the information to any party. Principle 2: Information in public interest cannot be withheld. Fact: A, a medical practitioner from Assam came to a hospital in Madras due to serious illness. The hospital authorities after detailed investigation found that A also suffers from HIV. After the treatment for the disease which was cured, (not the HIV) A went back to Assam. A marriage proposal between A and B was being considered. B after coming to hear from some anonymous sources asked the hospital authority of Madras to inform her about the real situation as to whether A is suffering from HIV. The hospital authority after understanding that, B was going to marry A and therefore ought to know about the health conditions of A, disclosed the information to B. A files a suit for realization of compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs against the hospital authority of Madras.

  1. The hospital authority has to pay Rs. 5 lakhs or any other amount decided by the court.

  2. The hospital authority is justified to disclose the information to any one interesting to know the information.

  3. The hospital authority is justified in giving the information only to b and not to make the information public otherwise.


Correct Option: A
Explanation:

The correct course of action in such a case should have been for B to approach A himself to seek clarifications as to his health status.  Only then should she have approached the hospital. As regards the hospital, it is duty bound to keep medical information of patients confidential unless public interest (as is not the case here) justifies disclosure.

- Hide questions