Topics of Law Test 66

Result

Topics of Law Test 66

Score
-
out of -
Rank
-
out of -

TIME Taken - -

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.

Weekly Quiz Competition

Question 1
1 / -0

PRINCIPLE: Qui facit per alium facit per se, i.e. he who does things through others does it himself.

FACT: Nisha, the owner of a car, asked her friend Saurabh to take her car and drive the same to her office. As the car was near her office, it hit a pedestrian Srikant on account of Saurabh's negligent driving and injured him seriously. Now Srikant files a suit for damages against Nisha.

Decide.

A
Nisha is not liable as it was the negligence of Saurabh.

B
Saurabh is solely liable as Nisha was not driving the car.

C
Nisha is liable as Saurabh was driving under her authority and for her purpose.

D
Saurabh will be exempted from liability under the principle of inevitable accident.

Solution

Quit facit per alium facit per se is a latin legal term which denotes, "He who acts through another does the act himself." It is a maxim often stated in discussing the liability of employer for the act of employee in terms of vicarious liability. It is a fundamental legal maxim of the law of agency. Further, if in the nature of things, the master is obliged to perform the duties by employing servants, he is responsible for their act in the same way that he is responsible for his own acts. Hence, Nisha will be held liable in the above situation as Saurabh was driving under her authority.
Question 2
1 / -0

LEGAL PRINCIPLE:
(1) An unlawful intrusion, which interferes with one's person or property constitutes trespass.
(2) An easement is the right to use another person's land for a stated purpose and has been in use of quite some time. It can involve a general or specific portion of the property.

FACTUAL SITUATION: Vijay wanted to construct a shed on his window to stop the water from leaking to his house. The shed was constructed but it protruded in Namit's house. Vijay claims it is his easementary right, Will Vijay's claim succeed?

DECIDE.

A
Yes, because he has a reason to do the same.

B
Yes, because right of easement exists.

C
No, because there exists no right of easement.

D
No, because this is encroachment on Namit's property.
Solution
- The Indian Easements Act, 1882 allows various rights to easement on the basis of necessity under Section 13. In the case of Bhagavatulu Subramania Sastri v Bhagavatulu Lakshminarasimham the Court had held that the defendant was allowed to go to the premises of the neighbour for the purpose of repairing her wall on the side of the neighbour's house.
- Similarly, Vijay could use his neighbour's premise to a small extent as it is necessary to build a shed to stop leakage of water into his house.
Question 3
1 / -0

LEGAL PRINCIPLE: (i) An occupier is not responsible to a trespass except in respect of wilful act intended to cause harm or done with reckless disregards, (ii) Master is liable for the acts of the employee/servant.
FACTS: A farmhouse is located in South Delhi on 2 acre plot of land. The owner of the farmhouse keeps a specially trained ferocious dog to guard his property. He also employs a dog-handler to handle this dog and instructs all his other employees to avoid the dog. A sign is also put up on the gate saying "Beware of Dog". On the afternoon of 26th January, a group of poor boys playing cricket in a nearby park hit the ball into the farmhouse. A 14-year boy enters the farmhouse to get the ball. The dog attacks the boy and he dies of the injuries. The family of the boy sues farmhouse owner for damages.

A
The owner is liable because the dog had a vicious or savage propensity and he had knowledge of the same

B
The owner should pay the damages because he is rich and the boy killed was poor

C
The owner is not liable because the boy committed trespass

D
The owner is not liable because a 14 years old boy ought to have known about the presence of the ferocious dog
Solution
- Tort law in general does not impose a very high standard of care on the home owner towards trespassers. But a minimum reasonable care is required to be exercised which involves not unnecessarily exposing a person to danger. This includes preventing harm from animals with dangerous propensities. Further, Lord Pearson in Videan v British Transport Commission had observed that with less of playing space and less supervision of children, there are high chances of children tempting to trespass. So, people are expected to prevent danger to children trespassing for playing purpose.
- In the present case as well, it was the duty of owner of the ferocious dog to take reasonable care before letting out the dog open as in case of children, there is high chances of trespassing without knowledge. Hence, the owner is liable because the dog had a vicious or savage propensity and he had knowledge of the same.
Question 4
1 / -0

LEGAL PRINCIPLEs: (1) Master/ Principal is vicariously liable for the tort committed by a servant/agent, in performance of his duties as an servant/agent.
(2) Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do or doing something which is prudent or reasonable man would not do.

FACTS: A patient is brought to a hospital maintained by B. The patient is to be operated upon. As a result of faulty oxygen supply, the patient dies on the operation theatre table, then ______.

A
B would not be liable because the surgeon was negligent

B
B would be liable because there is master and servant relationship between B and the surgeon

C
B would not be liable because there is no master and servant relationship between B and the surgeon

D
B would not be vicariously liable because surgery is a highly skilled work which B would have no control
Question 5
1 / -0

LEGAL PRINCIPLE: An act of God is an operation of natural forces so unexpected that no human foresight or skill could reasonably be expected to anticipate it.
FACTUAL SITUATION: The Surya Club was celebrating its 50th anniversary and arranged for a concert by a leading musical group. The event was to be organized in Great Palace auditorium in the coastal area. All the tickets were sold out. On the day of the event, the tsunami destroyed many of the buildings including the auditorium. People who purchased the tickets asked for refund from the Club as the show could not take place.
DECIDE.

A
The management of the Auditorium must refund the cost of tickets as they got money from the Club

B
The Club must refund the cost of tickets as the people were not at fault

C
The Club is not liable to refund the ticket but the ticket holders can demand the show to be organized at a later point of time

D
Neither the management of the Auditorium nor the Club is liable to refund the money

Solution

Act of God is a good defence in tort cases. It refers to any accident caused by natural forces without any human intervention and beyond human foresight. It can relieve a person of liability for torts if an act of God was the sole and proximate cause of injury. In general, flight companies or railways are not required to refund prices of tickets as the first step after cancellation due to bad weather. The money is usually utilized to make some other arrangements in the earliest possible time.
Hence, C is the correct option.
Question 6
1 / -0

"Pull blood" under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 means ________________________.

A
When two persons are descended from a common ancestor by the same wife

B
When two persons are descended from a common ancestor by separate wife

C
When two persons are descended from a separate ancestor by different wives

D
When two persons are descended from a separate ancestor by same wife.
Question 7
1 / -0

LEGAL PRINCIPLE: A person is liable for all the injurious consequences of his careless act.

FACTUAL SITUATION: Ramesh, a snake charmer, was exhibiting his talents to a group of people. One of the snakes escaped and bit a child who had to be hospitalized for two days for treatment.

DECIDE.

A
Ramesh is liable to compensate the child's family for his careless act.

B
Ramesh is not liable to compensate the child's family because he exercised due care and did not do it wilfully.

C
Ramesh is not liable to compensate the child's family because it is the duty of the spectators to take adequate care.

D
Ramesh is not liable to compensate the child's family because it was a mere accident.

Solution

In the above situation the snake charmer acted in a careless manner and so the snakes escaped causing injury to the child. Therefore Ramesh (the snake charmer) was liable to pay compensation for his careless act.
Question 8
1 / -0

PRINCIPLE: A master shall be responsible for the wrongful acts of his servants in the course of his employment.
FACTS: The Syndicate Bank was running a small savings scheme under which its authorised agents would go round and collect small savings from several people on daily basis. These agents would get commission, on the deposits so collected. Ananth was one such agent, collected deposits from factory worker engaged on daily wages. Though he regularly carried on his business for sometime, slowly he started appropriating deposits for his personal use and one day he just disappeared. Fatima, who had been handing over her savings to him found that nearly for a month before his disappearance, he was not depositing her savings at all. The Bank, when approached, took the stand that Ananth was not its regular and paid employee and, therefore, it was not responsible for his misconduct. She flies a suit against the bank.

A
The bank is not liable, since Ananth was not its salaried employee

B
The bank is liable, since Ananth was projected as its employee

C
The bank is not liable, since it did not know about misappropriation by Ananth

D
None of the above

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, bank will be held liable as Ananth was projected as its employee.
Question 9
1 / -0

A person cannot recover from another an amount paid under ____________.

A
mistake of law

B
mistake of fact

C
coercion

D
None of these
Question 10
1 / -0

LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Master/Principal is vicariously liable for the tort committed by a servant/agent, in the performance of his duties as a servant/agent.

FACTS: A gave some cash and cheques to his friend B, who was an employee of the State Bank of India, to deposit the same in that Bank in the account of A. B misappropriated the amount.

If A sues the Bank, for damages, then the Bank is _______.

A
Liable to pay because it was the employer of B

B
Liable to pay because the employee did it during business hours and while working as an employee

C
Not liable because he turned out to be the friend of the plantiff's husband

D
Not liable because while committing the fraud, he was not acting as the agent or employee of the Bank

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, Bank will not be liable as B was not acting as the agent/employee of the bank while committing fraud.

User

Question Analysis

Correct -
Wrong -
Skipped -

My Perfomance

Score
-
out of -
Rank
-
out of -

Re-Attempt Weekly Quiz Competition

Topics of Law Test 66

Result

Topics of Law Test 66

Score

-

Rank

-

SHARING IS CARING

Question 1

Nisha is not liable as it was the negligence of Saurabh.

Saurabh is solely liable as Nisha was not driving the car.

Nisha is liable as Saurabh was driving under her authority and for her purpose.

Saurabh will be exempted from liability under the principle of inevitable accident.

Solution

Question 2

Yes, because he has a reason to do the same.

Yes, because right of easement exists.

No, because there exists no right of easement.

No, because this is encroachment on Namit's property.

Solution

Question 3

The owner is liable because the dog had a vicious or savage propensity and he had knowledge of the same

The owner should pay the damages because he is rich and the boy killed was poor

The owner is not liable because the boy committed trespass

The owner is not liable because a 14 years old boy ought to have known about the presence of the ferocious dog

Solution

Question 4

B would not be liable because the surgeon was negligent

B would be liable because there is master and servant relationship between B and the surgeon

B would not be liable because there is no master and servant relationship between B and the surgeon

B would not be vicariously liable because surgery is a highly skilled work which B would have no control

Question 5

The management of the Auditorium must refund the cost of tickets as they got money from the Club

The Club must refund the cost of tickets as the people were not at fault

The Club is not liable to refund the ticket but the ticket holders can demand the show to be organized at a later point of time

Neither the management of the Auditorium nor the Club is liable to refund the money

Solution

Question 6

When two persons are descended from a common ancestor by the same wife

When two persons are descended from a common ancestor by separate wife

When two persons are descended from a separate ancestor by different wives

When two persons are descended from a separate ancestor by same wife.

Question 7

Ramesh is liable to compensate the child's family for his careless act.

Ramesh is not liable to compensate the child's family because he exercised due care and did not do it wilfully.

Ramesh is not liable to compensate the child's family because it is the duty of the spectators to take adequate care.

Ramesh is not liable to compensate the child's family because it was a mere accident.

Solution

Question 8

The bank is not liable, since Ananth was not its salaried employee

The bank is liable, since Ananth was projected as its employee

The bank is not liable, since it did not know about misappropriation by Ananth

None of the above

Solution

Question 9

mistake of law

mistake of fact

coercion

None of these

Question 10

Liable to pay because it was the employer of B

Liable to pay because the employee did it during business hours and while working as an employee

Not liable because he turned out to be the friend of the plantiff's husband

Not liable because while committing the fraud, he was not acting as the agent or employee of the Bank

Solution

User

Question Analysis

My Perfomance

Score

-

Rank

-

Results Announcement on: coming Monday

Stay Tuned: We’ll update you on your result via email or SMS.