| GyanCentral - The hub for engineering and law students - IIT-JEE, AIEEE, BITSAT, CLAT, AILET - 2012: Legal Reasoning- 7 Oct 9th 2012, 14:36 | GyanCentral - The hub for engineering and law students - IIT-JEE, AIEEE, BITSAT, CLAT, AILET - 2012 | | The source for all engineering and legal education news in India | | | Legal Reasoning- 7 Oct 9th 2012, 13:58 1. Legal Principle- Damages cannot be claimed against a risk to which content has been given. The principle does not apply to rescue cases. Factual Situation- X and Y bought tickets to have a ringside view of a football match. During the course of the game a hard kick from one of players caused the ball to hit X on his nose, causing bleeding and nausea. After half time the organizers allowed entry of more spectators than the seating capacity of the stadium. In the resulting stampede R and S who were watching the match since the beginning got injured. Five minutes before close of play, a part of the stadium roof broke loose. Y rushed to save children sitting beneath the roof and in the process injured himself. Decision- a. X shall not be able to recover as he consented to the risk of the flying ball. b. X shall be able to recover as the organizers failed to take precautions against the flying ball. c. X shall be able to recover as he consented to watch the game not to be injured in it. d. X shall not be able to recover as by purchasing a ringside seat in football game he consented to all the attendant risks of such watching. Answer- d 2. Legal Principle- Any person may use reasonable force in order to protect his property or person. However, the force employed must be proportionate to the apprehended danger. Factual Situation- Ravi was walking on a lonely road. Maniyan came with a knife and said to Ravi, "Your life or your purse". Ravi pulled out his revolver. On seeing it, Maniyan ran. Ravi shot Manyan in his legs. Decision- a. Ravi will not be punished as there was danger to this property b. Ravi will not be punished as the force he use was proportionate to the apprehended injury. c. Ravi will be punished as the force employed was disproportionate to the apprehended injury. d. As Maniyan ran to escape there was no longer a threat to Ravi's property. So Ravi will be punished. Answer- c 3. Legal Principle- Nobody shall make use of his property in such a way as to cause damage to others. Any such use constitutes private nuisance, a wrongful act under Law of Torts. Ram owned a house, adjacent to a couple of houses, owned by Rahul. Rahul was leasing out these houses whereas Ram was living in his house. When Ram was transferred to another place, he leased out his house to a person suffering from AIDS. Fearing the spread of AIDS, the tenants moved out of Rahul's houses. Rahul requested Ram to evict the AIDS patient and he offered to fix a suitable tenant for Ram's house. But Ram refused by arguing that AIDS would not spread as feared by Rahul's tenants. Rahul filed a suit against Ram. a) Rahul will win, because Ram knowingly caused him, financial damage. b) Rahul will not win, because Ram could lease his house to whomever he wanted c) Rahul will not win, because Ram has not done any act which in any manner is causing damage to Rahul. Answer- c 4. Legal Principle- One has to compensate other for the injury caused due to his wrongful act. The liability to compensate is reduced to the extent the latter has contributed to the injury through his own negligence. This is the underlying principle of contributory negligence. Kannan owns a farm at a distance of 100 metres from the railway track. He stored in his land the stacks of dried up straw after the cultivation as in normal in farming. One day when the train was passing through the track, the driver negligently operating the locomotive by allowing it to emit large quantities of spark. The high wind, normal in open fields, carried the sparks to the stacks stored by Kannan and the stacks caught fire thereby causing extensive damage. Kannan filed a suit against the Railways claiming damages. The Railways while acknowledging liability alleged contributory negligence on the part of Kannan. a) Kannan was not liable since his use of land was lawful. b) Kannan's farm being at a reasonable distance from the railway track, he cannot be held responsible for the high winds. c) Kannan should have anticipated the possibility and hence he is liable for contributory negligence. Answer C 5. Legal Principle- A person owes a duty of care to everybody who is likely to be affected by his act. Ranga owns a condiment store selling both branded and non branded bakery products. A customer bought a pack of buns produced by Modern Bread Factory. A bun in the pack contained a stone and while eating that bun, the stone hurt the customer's tooth. He filed a suit against Ranga. a) Ranga owed a duty of care to all his regular customers, and hence he is liable. b) Ranga did not owe a duty of care on behalf of Modern Breads and hence is not liable. c) It is for the customer to take care of himself in whatever he is doing. Answer- b | | | |  | |
No comments:
Post a Comment