Self Studies
Self Studies
Self Studies
Self Studies

Topics of Law Test 63

Result Self Studies

Topics of Law Test 63
  • Score

    -

    out of -
  • Rank

    -

    out of -
TIME Taken - -
Self Studies

SHARING IS CARING

If our Website helped you a little, then kindly spread our voice using Social Networks. Spread our word to your readers, friends, teachers, students & all those close ones who deserve to know what you know now.

Self Studies Self Studies
Weekly Quiz Competition
  • Question 1
    1 / -0
    LEGAL PRINCIPLE: A master shall be liable for the fraudulent acts of his servants committed in the course of employment. However, the master and third parties must exercise reasonable care in this regard.

    FACTUAL SITUATION: Rahul was a door to door salesman with United Manufacturing Company (the Company). The Company was manufacturing Water Purifiers. Rahul, along with the Company's products used to carry Water Purifiers manufactured by his cousin in a local Industrial Estate. He used to sell the local product at a lower rate giving the impression to the buyers that is is offering a discount on the Company's product. The Company Management detected the fraudulent activity of Rahul and dismissed him from service. Rahul still continued to carry on with his activity of selling the local product pretending that he was still a salesman of the Company. Several customers got cheated in this process. The fraud was noticed by the Company when the customers began to complain about the product. The customers demanded the Company to compensate their loss.

    DECIDE.

    Solution
    Vicarious liability can be defined as a legal doctrine that assigns liability for an injury to a person who did not cause the injury who has a particular relationship to the person who did act negligently. It can also be called as imputed negligence. This doctrine arises under the common law doctrine of agency, respondeat superior, the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate or, in a broader sense, the responsibility of any third party that had the "right, ability or duty to control" the activities of a violator.  Hence, in the above situation, the company will be liable.
  • Question 2
    1 / -0
    Given below are Legal Principles followed by a Factual Situation. Apply the principles followed by a factual Situation. Apply the principle to it and select the most appropriate answer for question among the four choices given.

    LEGAL PRINCIPLE: A right of action cannot arise out of an illegal activity.

    FACTUAL SITUATION: A and B were thieves engaged in stealing cars and other vehicles. One day they stole a car and while driving through a city, they engaged a driver to drive them through the city, as they did not know the route inside the city. As the indicator lamp of the car was not working and the thieves were unaware of this, they did not tell about it to the driver due to which another car belonging to X was damaged and his driver suffered injuries. X and his driver filed a suit for damages against A and B.
    DECIDE:
    Solution
    Ex turpi causa non oritur action which means from a dishonourable cause an action does not arise in latin. This legal doctrine stipulates that a plaintiff will be unable to pursue legal remedy if it arises in connection with his own illegal act. Under law of tort, principle aims to prevent a criminal from bringing a claim against a fellow criminal. Hence, X and his driver would win since they were not a party to the stealing.
  • Question 3
    1 / -0
    PRINCIPLE: Whoever intending to take dishonestly (with in intention to cause wrongful loss to another or wrongful gain to himself) any movable property without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.
    FACTUAL SITUATION: A had lent his watch to B for a period of a month. Two days after he had done so, he walked into B's office to find the watch on B's table. He decided to take the watch back. A was prosecuted for theft.
    Solution

    According to the principle the taking away of the property must be done dishonestly.-

    Dishonesty, as defined in section 24of IPC, consists of two main ingredients it says that an act is done which cause either ‘wrongful gain' or ‘wrongful loss' is said to be done dishonestly. Dishonesty must have the element of mens rea to cause loss or gain to oneself. 

    There should be an intention of taking property from the possession of another. Such intention must be to cause wrongful gain to oneself or wrongful loss to another. 

    Such taking away of property must be done without the permission of the owner- i.e. without consent. 

    Since there was no dishonest intention and whatever A did was not done with dishonest intention that is to either cause wrongful gain to himself or wrongful loss to B.

  • Question 4
    1 / -0
    LEGAL PRINCIPLE:  Consent is a good defence in a civil action for tort but the act should be the same for which consent was given.

    FACTUAL SITUATION: 'B' was formally invited by 'A' to his house. B after sitting for some time in drawing room, moved to the bed room of the house. A sued B for trespass.
    Solution
    Trespass to the person is a tort which involves wrongs being done to an individual. It also refers to interference with another person's land or personal property. A common defense that can be used if one were sued for trespass is that one were given consent by the owner of the land or property. In the above case, consent was not given for entry into the bedroom.
  • Question 5
    1 / -0
    LEGAL PRINCIPLE:  An independent contractor is one who is employed to do some work of his employer. He is engaged under contract for services. He undertakes to produce a given result, and in the actual execution of the work, he is not under the direct control or following directions of his employer. He may use his own discretion in execution of the work assigned.
    In general, an employer is not liable for the torts (wrongful acts) of his independent contractor. But, the employer may be held liable if he directs him to do some careless acts.

    FACTUAL SITUATION: Ramesh hired a taxi-cab to go to Delhi Airport. As he started late from his home, he kept on urging the taxi-driver to drive at a high speed and driver followed the directions and ultimately due to high speed an accident took place causing injuries to a person.
    Solution
    The general rule at common law is that a person who employs an independent contractor will not be liable for loss flowing from the contractor's negligence. The owner will be liable for loss flowing from negligence in hiring or supervising the contractor. But, in those circumstances, the owner is not being held vicariously liable for the acts of the contractor, but is directly liable for its own negligence. 
    Hence, Ramesh will be held liable. 
  • Question 6
    1 / -0
    LEGAL PRINCIPLE:  Consent is a good defence for civil action in tort. But consent must include both knowledge of risk and assumption of risk, i.e. readiness to bear harm.

    FACTUAL SITUATION: A lady passenger was aware that the driver of the cab, in which she opted to travel was little intoxicated. The met with an accident and lady got injured.

    Decide
    Solution
    The defence of violenti non fit injuria requires a freely entered and voluntary agreement by the claimant, in full knowledge of the circumstances, to absolve the defendant of all legal consequences of their actions. Hence, Lady will be entitled to compensation.
  • Question 7
    1 / -0
    The maxim 'Res Ipsa Loquitor' means __________________.
  • Question 8
    1 / -0
    LEGAL PRINCIPLE: A master is liable for those acts of his servant which are committed in the course of employment.

    FACTUAL SITUATION: A travelling agency asked its driver to drop a customer at the Delhi University. After dropping the customer, when he was returning back to the office of agency, he found his girlfriend on the way who was waiting for a bus to her residence which is one kilometer away from the office of agency. The driver offered her the lift. On the way, the car met with an accident and the girl got severely injured. She now claims compensation from the agency.

    DECIDE.
  • Question 9
    1 / -0
    LEGAL PRINCIPLE: A servant is one who is employed to do some work for his employee (master). He is engaged under a contract of service. He works directly under the control and direction of his master.In general, the master is vicariously liable for those torts (wrongful acts) of his servant which are done by the servant in the course of his employment.

    FACTUAL SITUATION: 'M' appointed 'D' exclusively for the purpose of driving his tourist vehicle. M also appointed 'C' exclusively for the purpose of performing  the work of a conductor for the tourist vehicle. During one trip, at the end of the journey, 'C', while 'D' was not on the driver's seat, and apparently for the purpose of turning he vehicle in the right direction for the next journey, drove it through the street at high speed and negligently injured P.

    DECIDE.
    Solution
    • The principle of respondeat superior states that a master is vicariously liable for the acts done by his employees. One of the important conditions for the applicability of this principle is that the negligent act must be committed within the course of employment. The term 'course of employment' refers to the acts of the employee or servant in furtherance of the duties assigned by the master or employer and in which case the employer or master is in a position to exercise control over his employee. 
    • In the present case, C was not acting in furtherance of assigned duties which was only that of a conductor for the vehicle. Due to non-employment for this purpose, M could not be expected to exercise control over activities of C.
  • Question 10
    1 / -0
    LEGAL PRINCIPLE: In the employer-employee relationship, the employer is held liable for all the wrongs committed by his employees in the course of employment.
    FACTUAL SITUATION: David was employed as a Driver in ABC and Co. over the past 15 years and has been appreciated by the General Manager for his hard work and sincerity. He has been rewarded by the company for his accident free record. David's younger brother wanted to join the same company as a driver. He obtained a Learner's License and joined a Driving School and was learning driving during the last three months. He was on the verge of completion of the training and appear for the Driving test. He wanted to have more practice before the test and requested his brother David for using the Company's car for two days. David also allowed him to use the office car for the practice. While he was practicing driving, a truck came from the wrong side, hit the company's car driven by David's brother, which in turn hit a pedestrian and injured him. The pedestrian sues the company for damages.
    DECIDE.
    Solution
    Vicarious liability can be defined as a legal doctrine that assigns liability for an injury to a person who did not cause the injury who has a particular relationship to the person who did act negligently. It can also be called as imputed negligence. This doctrine arises under the common law doctrine of agency, respondeat superior, the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate or, in a broader sense, the responsibility of any third party that had the "right, ability or duty to control" the activities of a violator. Hence, the company will not be held liable.
Self Studies
User
Question Analysis

  • Correct -

  • Wrong -

  • Skipped -

My Perfomance
  • Score

    -

    out of -
  • Rank

    -

    out of -
Re-Attempt Weekly Quiz Competition
Self Studies Get latest Exam Updates
& Study Material Alerts!
No, Thanks
Self Studies
Click on Allow to receive notifications
Allow Notification
Self Studies
Self Studies Self Studies
To enable notifications follow this 2 steps:
  • First Click on Secure Icon Self Studies
  • Second click on the toggle icon
Allow Notification
Get latest Exam Updates & FREE Study Material Alerts!
Self Studies ×
Open Now