Legal Reasoning Test-1

Passage - 1

The law of torts has been evolving throughout its existence. There are certain principles which are used to counter claims for compensation. These counterclaims or defences are used to evict those citizens from tortious liability who have been unfairly been implicated with wrong claims imposed on them. These defences have been formulated from time to time to keep up with the basis of imposition of tortious liability on a person.
INEVITABLE ACCIDENT
Inevitable Accidents are, as evident from the name, events which could not have been prevented by the parties through the exercise of ordinary care, caution, and skill. An inevitable accident is one which could not be possibly prevented by the exercise of ordinary care, caution and skill and hence it does not apply to anything which either of the parties might have avoided. Sir Frederick Pollock defined an inevitable accident as an accident which is not avoidable by any precautions, a reasonable man could have expected to take.
In the past cases, the defence of inevitable accident used to be very relevant in actions for trespass when the older rule was that even an innocent trespass was actionable unless the defendant could prove that the accident was caused due to it being inevitable in nature. The term "inevitable accident "is used in instances where the accidents occur by chance and in the absence of human error. Both of these are similar in terms of negligence, if it is proved by the plaintiff that there was negligence on the part of the defendant then the defendant will not be able to escape liability by using these defenses. The plea of an inevitable accident has lost its practicality in today 's day and age, as it has lost its utility since the principle of absolute liability, applies even in the absence of defendant 's negligence and with the growth in the dimension of science the number of accidents which were considered to be inevitable is fastly diminishing.
To sum it all up, an inevitable accident is an event which happens not only without the concurrence of the will of a man but in spite of all the efforts that a man may put on his part to prevent it from happening i.e. an accident which is physically unavoidable and can 't be prevented by human skill or foresight.

Q. X was digging earth with a spade. The top part of the spade got disjointed and hit Y, who was collecting the mud nearby. On inspection it was found that the spade was rusted, which resulted in the accident. X pleaded the defence of accident. Decide.

Passage - 1

The law of torts has been evolving throughout its existence. There are certain principles which are used to counter claims for compensation. These counterclaims or defences are used to evict those citizens from tortious liability who have been unfairly been implicated with wrong claims imposed on them. These defences have been formulated from time to time to keep up with the basis of imposition of tortious liability on a person.
INEVITABLE ACCIDENT
Inevitable Accidents are, as evident from the name, events which could not have been prevented by the parties through the exercise of ordinary care, caution, and skill. An inevitable accident is one which could not be possibly prevented by the exercise of ordinary care, caution and skill and hence it does not apply to anything which either of the parties might have avoided. Sir Frederick Pollock defined an inevitable accident as an accident which is not avoidable by any precautions, a reasonable man could have expected to take.
In the past cases, the defence of inevitable accident used to be very relevant in actions for trespass when the older rule was that even an innocent trespass was actionable unless the defendant could prove that the accident was caused due to it being inevitable in nature. The term "inevitable accident "is used in instances where the accidents occur by chance and in the absence of human error. Both of these are similar in terms of negligence, if it is proved by the plaintiff that there was negligence on the part of the defendant then the defendant will not be able to escape liability by using these defenses. The plea of an inevitable accident has lost its practicality in today 's day and age, as it has lost its utility since the principle of absolute liability, applies even in the absence of defendant 's negligence and with the growth in the dimension of science the number of accidents which were considered to be inevitable is fastly diminishing.
To sum it all up, an inevitable accident is an event which happens not only without the concurrence of the will of a man but in spite of all the efforts that a man may put on his part to prevent it from happening i.e. an accident which is physically unavoidable and can 't be prevented by human skill or foresight.

Q. X was carrying on the business of production of narcotic and psychotropic substances for which one needed to obtain a permit license from Central Bureau of Narcotics. X had applied for the license to run such a business which was awaited. The process involved use of large boilers to heat water. The boilers were imported from abroad and were best available anywhere in the world. X ensured that the boilers were used according to the instructions of the manufacturers. Due to some latent fault in manufacturing, one of the boilers burst, causing injuries to several workers. On being charged, X pleaded the defence of "accident ". Decide.

Passage - 1

The law of torts has been evolving throughout its existence. There are certain principles which are used to counter claims for compensation. These counterclaims or defences are used to evict those citizens from tortious liability who have been unfairly been implicated with wrong claims imposed on them. These defences have been formulated from time to time to keep up with the basis of imposition of tortious liability on a person.
INEVITABLE ACCIDENT
Inevitable Accidents are, as evident from the name, events which could not have been prevented by the parties through the exercise of ordinary care, caution, and skill. An inevitable accident is one which could not be possibly prevented by the exercise of ordinary care, caution and skill and hence it does not apply to anything which either of the parties might have avoided. Sir Frederick Pollock defined an inevitable accident as an accident which is not avoidable by any precautions, a reasonable man could have expected to take.
In the past cases, the defence of inevitable accident used to be very relevant in actions for trespass when the older rule was that even an innocent trespass was actionable unless the defendant could prove that the accident was caused due to it being inevitable in nature. The term "inevitable accident "is used in instances where the accidents occur by chance and in the absence of human error. Both of these are similar in terms of negligence, if it is proved by the plaintiff that there was negligence on the part of the defendant then the defendant will not be able to escape liability by using these defenses. The plea of an inevitable accident has lost its practicality in today 's day and age, as it has lost its utility since the principle of absolute liability, applies even in the absence of defendant 's negligence and with the growth in the dimension of science the number of accidents which were considered to be inevitable is fastly diminishing.
To sum it all up, an inevitable accident is an event which happens not only without the concurrence of the will of a man but in spite of all the efforts that a man may put on his part to prevent it from happening i.e. an accident which is physically unavoidable and can 't be prevented by human skill or foresight.

Q. Nothing is said to be done or believed in good faith which is done or believed without proper care and caution. A young boy was hit by a car resulting in injuries and bleeding. X who witnessed the accident, took the boy to a local dispensary. Since there was no one at the dispensary, he decided to give stitches to boy himself. An infection was contracted by the boy as a result of stitches. X was arrested but he pleaded that his actions were carried out in good faith. Decide.

Passage - 1

The law of torts has been evolving throughout its existence. There are certain principles which are used to counter claims for compensation. These counterclaims or defences are used to evict those citizens from tortious liability who have been unfairly been implicated with wrong claims imposed on them. These defences have been formulated from time to time to keep up with the basis of imposition of tortious liability on a person.
INEVITABLE ACCIDENT
Inevitable Accidents are, as evident from the name, events which could not have been prevented by the parties through the exercise of ordinary care, caution, and skill. An inevitable accident is one which could not be possibly prevented by the exercise of ordinary care, caution and skill and hence it does not apply to anything which either of the parties might have avoided. Sir Frederick Pollock defined an inevitable accident as an accident which is not avoidable by any precautions, a reasonable man could have expected to take.
In the past cases, the defence of inevitable accident used to be very relevant in actions for trespass when the older rule was that even an innocent trespass was actionable unless the defendant could prove that the accident was caused due to it being inevitable in nature. The term "inevitable accident "is used in instances where the accidents occur by chance and in the absence of human error. Both of these are similar in terms of negligence, if it is proved by the plaintiff that there was negligence on the part of the defendant then the defendant will not be able to escape liability by using these defenses. The plea of an inevitable accident has lost its practicality in today 's day and age, as it has lost its utility since the principle of absolute liability, applies even in the absence of defendant 's negligence and with the growth in the dimension of science the number of accidents which were considered to be inevitable is fastly diminishing.
To sum it all up, an inevitable accident is an event which happens not only without the concurrence of the will of a man but in spite of all the efforts that a man may put on his part to prevent it from happening i.e. an accident which is physically unavoidable and can 't be prevented by human skill or foresight.

Q. An inevitable accident is that which could not possibly be prevented by the exercise of ordinary care, caution and skill. Raju had a gun, which he was cleaning when he was called to attend an urgent matter at his office. He left the gun empty at the table. While he was at his office, Bhola, his servant took the gun and went out for shooting and in a hurry kept the loaded gun on the table when he returned. Raju later took the gun and thinking that the gun was empty, started cleaning it again and accidently fired which killed Madhulika, his daughter who was playing in the room. If Bhola while unloading the gun in a hurry, shot Madhulika by mistake, would he be liable?

Passage - 1

The law of torts has been evolving throughout its existence. There are certain principles which are used to counter claims for compensation. These counterclaims or defences are used to evict those citizens from tortious liability who have been unfairly been implicated with wrong claims imposed on them. These defences have been formulated from time to time to keep up with the basis of imposition of tortious liability on a person.
INEVITABLE ACCIDENT
Inevitable Accidents are, as evident from the name, events which could not have been prevented by the parties through the exercise of ordinary care, caution, and skill. An inevitable accident is one which could not be possibly prevented by the exercise of ordinary care, caution and skill and hence it does not apply to anything which either of the parties might have avoided. Sir Frederick Pollock defined an inevitable accident as an accident which is not avoidable by any precautions, a reasonable man could have expected to take.
In the past cases, the defence of inevitable accident used to be very relevant in actions for trespass when the older rule was that even an innocent trespass was actionable unless the defendant could prove that the accident was caused due to it being inevitable in nature. The term "inevitable accident "is used in instances where the accidents occur by chance and in the absence of human error. Both of these are similar in terms of negligence, if it is proved by the plaintiff that there was negligence on the part of the defendant then the defendant will not be able to escape liability by using these defenses. The plea of an inevitable accident has lost its practicality in today 's day and age, as it has lost its utility since the principle of absolute liability, applies even in the absence of defendant 's negligence and with the growth in the dimension of science the number of accidents which were considered to be inevitable is fastly diminishing.
To sum it all up, an inevitable accident is an event which happens not only without the concurrence of the will of a man but in spite of all the efforts that a man may put on his part to prevent it from happening i.e. an accident which is physically unavoidable and can 't be prevented by human skill or foresight.

Q. Ankit was a college student and was living with his grandfather, who had recently got a kidney transplant treatment done. Though he was doing well, he was not allowed to be administered any medication without doctor 's consultation. One day, his grandfather slipped in the bathroom and twisted his ankle. Ankit got an ointment to reduce pain and rubbed it well on his ankle. After two hours, his grandfather suffered a severe pain in his abdomen and by the time he was taken to the hospital, he passed away on the way. It was diagnosed that the pain killer ointment seeped through his skin and mixed with the blood because of which the kidneys failed. Is Ankit liable for his grandfather 's death?

Passage - 1

The law of torts has been evolving throughout its existence. There are certain principles which are used to counter claims for compensation. These counterclaims or defences are used to evict those citizens from tortious liability who have been unfairly been implicated with wrong claims imposed on them. These defences have been formulated from time to time to keep up with the basis of imposition of tortious liability on a person.
INEVITABLE ACCIDENT
Inevitable Accidents are, as evident from the name, events which could not have been prevented by the parties through the exercise of ordinary care, caution, and skill. An inevitable accident is one which could not be possibly prevented by the exercise of ordinary care, caution and skill and hence it does not apply to anything which either of the parties might have avoided. Sir Frederick Pollock defined an inevitable accident as an accident which is not avoidable by any precautions, a reasonable man could have expected to take.
In the past cases, the defence of inevitable accident used to be very relevant in actions for trespass when the older rule was that even an innocent trespass was actionable unless the defendant could prove that the accident was caused due to it being inevitable in nature. The term "inevitable accident "is used in instances where the accidents occur by chance and in the absence of human error. Both of these are similar in terms of negligence, if it is proved by the plaintiff that there was negligence on the part of the defendant then the defendant will not be able to escape liability by using these defenses. The plea of an inevitable accident has lost its practicality in today 's day and age, as it has lost its utility since the principle of absolute liability, applies even in the absence of defendant 's negligence and with the growth in the dimension of science the number of accidents which were considered to be inevitable is fastly diminishing.
To sum it all up, an inevitable accident is an event which happens not only without the concurrence of the will of a man but in spite of all the efforts that a man may put on his part to prevent it from happening i.e. an accident which is physically unavoidable and can 't be prevented by human skill or foresight.

Q. Uday owned XY Courier Works, a firm of shipments and carriers. One day Uday received a wooden carton from their old trusted client at New Delhi office which was to be shipped to Mumbai through their "Express - Same day delivery "service. The carton was ordinary in its appearance and carried no suspicion as to its content and since it had reached two hours later than the usual time, it was immediately sent for shipment, without anything being said or asked. On arrival at Mumbai, the carton was taken to Uday 's office (which had been rented from Roshni) in the regular course of business. There some greasy liquid substance was found leaking from it. An employee of Uday proceeded to open the case with a hammer and chisel. The contents, in fact being nitro-glycerine, exploded. All the persons present in Uday 's office were killed and the office was destroyed. Action was brought by Roshni for damages. Uday claims the defence of inevitable accident. Decide.

Passage - 1

The law of torts has been evolving throughout its existence. There are certain principles which are used to counter claims for compensation. These counterclaims or defences are used to evict those citizens from tortious liability who have been unfairly been implicated with wrong claims imposed on them. These defences have been formulated from time to time to keep up with the basis of imposition of tortious liability on a person.
INEVITABLE ACCIDENT
Inevitable Accidents are, as evident from the name, events which could not have been prevented by the parties through the exercise of ordinary care, caution, and skill. An inevitable accident is one which could not be possibly prevented by the exercise of ordinary care, caution and skill and hence it does not apply to anything which either of the parties might have avoided. Sir Frederick Pollock defined an inevitable accident as an accident which is not avoidable by any precautions, a reasonable man could have expected to take.
In the past cases, the defence of inevitable accident used to be very relevant in actions for trespass when the older rule was that even an innocent trespass was actionable unless the defendant could prove that the accident was caused due to it being inevitable in nature. The term "inevitable accident "is used in instances where the accidents occur by chance and in the absence of human error. Both of these are similar in terms of negligence, if it is proved by the plaintiff that there was negligence on the part of the defendant then the defendant will not be able to escape liability by using these defenses. The plea of an inevitable accident has lost its practicality in today 's day and age, as it has lost its utility since the principle of absolute liability, applies even in the absence of defendant 's negligence and with the growth in the dimension of science the number of accidents which were considered to be inevitable is fastly diminishing.
To sum it all up, an inevitable accident is an event which happens not only without the concurrence of the will of a man but in spite of all the efforts that a man may put on his part to prevent it from happening i.e. an accident which is physically unavoidable and can 't be prevented by human skill or foresight.

Q. The master is liable for all the acts done by his servant during the course of employment. Nina had a 4 horse driven carriage which she used to rent for marriage purposes. The horses were very tame and listened to its caretaker. One day she asked her servant Rinku to take the carriage to the customer 's desired destination and Rinku did likewise. At the time of the baraat ceremony, the groom was sitting on the carriage and the baraat was moving towards the wedding venue. In the meantime, 2-3 dogs came and started barking at the horses. The horses panicked and started to run. Rinku tried to calm them down but they became so unmanageable that he could not stop them. While unsuccessfully trying to turn a corner safely, the carriage tumbled and the groom sustained injuries. The customer asked Nina for compensation.

Passage - 1

The law of torts has been evolving throughout its existence. There are certain principles which are used to counter claims for compensation. These counterclaims or defences are used to evict those citizens from tortious liability who have been unfairly been implicated with wrong claims imposed on them. These defences have been formulated from time to time to keep up with the basis of imposition of tortious liability on a person.
INEVITABLE ACCIDENT
Inevitable Accidents are, as evident from the name, events which could not have been prevented by the parties through the exercise of ordinary care, caution, and skill. An inevitable accident is one which could not be possibly prevented by the exercise of ordinary care, caution and skill and hence it does not apply to anything which either of the parties might have avoided. Sir Frederick Pollock defined an inevitable accident as an accident which is not avoidable by any precautions, a reasonable man could have expected to take.
In the past cases, the defence of inevitable accident used to be very relevant in actions for trespass when the older rule was that even an innocent trespass was actionable unless the defendant could prove that the accident was caused due to it being inevitable in nature. The term "inevitable accident "is used in instances where the accidents occur by chance and in the absence of human error. Both of these are similar in terms of negligence, if it is proved by the plaintiff that there was negligence on the part of the defendant then the defendant will not be able to escape liability by using these defenses. The plea of an inevitable accident has lost its practicality in today 's day and age, as it has lost its utility since the principle of absolute liability, applies even in the absence of defendant 's negligence and with the growth in the dimension of science the number of accidents which were considered to be inevitable is fastly diminishing.
To sum it all up, an inevitable accident is an event which happens not only without the concurrence of the will of a man but in spite of all the efforts that a man may put on his part to prevent it from happening i.e. an accident which is physically unavoidable and can 't be prevented by human skill or foresight.

Q. Sharman 's horses while being driven by his servant Sushant on a public road, got scared from barking of a dog and became unmanageable. Sushant tried his best to stop the horses but did not succeed in the endeavor. He was however able to control them to some extent. While trying to turn around a corner safely, the horses knocked down and injured Shyamlal who was waiting for a bus on the highway. Can Sushant be held liable?
(i) Sushant is liable as he should not have taken the horses on the road. He did not exercise ordinary care and caution.
(ii) Sushant is not liable as he could not have foreseen that a dog 's bark would cause the horses to become unmanageable.
(iii) Sushant is not liable as he used his skill under the circumstances to control the scared horses.
(iv) Sushant is liable as he did not have enough skill to handle the horses.

Passage - 1

The law of torts has been evolving throughout its existence. There are certain principles which are used to counter claims for compensation. These counterclaims or defences are used to evict those citizens from tortious liability who have been unfairly been implicated with wrong claims imposed on them. These defences have been formulated from time to time to keep up with the basis of imposition of tortious liability on a person.
INEVITABLE ACCIDENT
Inevitable Accidents are, as evident from the name, events which could not have been prevented by the parties through the exercise of ordinary care, caution, and skill. An inevitable accident is one which could not be possibly prevented by the exercise of ordinary care, caution and skill and hence it does not apply to anything which either of the parties might have avoided. Sir Frederick Pollock defined an inevitable accident as an accident which is not avoidable by any precautions, a reasonable man could have expected to take.
In the past cases, the defence of inevitable accident used to be very relevant in actions for trespass when the older rule was that even an innocent trespass was actionable unless the defendant could prove that the accident was caused due to it being inevitable in nature. The term "inevitable accident "is used in instances where the accidents occur by chance and in the absence of human error. Both of these are similar in terms of negligence, if it is proved by the plaintiff that there was negligence on the part of the defendant then the defendant will not be able to escape liability by using these defenses. The plea of an inevitable accident has lost its practicality in today 's day and age, as it has lost its utility since the principle of absolute liability, applies even in the absence of defendant 's negligence and with the growth in the dimension of science the number of accidents which were considered to be inevitable is fastly diminishing.
To sum it all up, an inevitable accident is an event which happens not only without the concurrence of the will of a man but in spite of all the efforts that a man may put on his part to prevent it from happening i.e. an accident which is physically unavoidable and can 't be prevented by human skill or foresight.

Q. Nothing is an offence which is done by accident and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner and with proper care and caution. Ram is a police officer deputed at DhaulaKuan Police Station, New Delhi. One day, Ram went for night patrolling after consuming alcohol. During his duty, Ram saw Rawan (a dreaded criminal) trying to break open an ATM Machine. Ram started chasing him as he started to flee. Whilst chasing Rawan, Ram ran his jeep over pedestrians sleeping on the road. Which of the following derivations is correct?

Passage - 2

Europe 's top court said on Thursday that individual countries can order Facebook to take down posts, photographs and videos not only in their own countries but elsewhere, in a ruling that extends the reach of the region 's internet-related laws beyond its own borders. The European Court of Justice said Facebook could be forced to remove a post globally by a national court in the European Union 's 28-member bloc if the content was determined to be defamatory or otherwise illegal. Its decision cannot be appealed.

The decision sets a new benchmark for the purview of European laws that govern the internet, giving European countries the power to apply takedown requests internationally. That foreshadows future disputes over Europe 's role in setting rules on the internet, especially as other nations increasingly pass their own laws to deal with privacy, hate speech and disinformation. "There is this impulse in Europe that is trying to set global regulatory standards,"said Ben Wagner, director of the Privacy and Sustainable Computing Lab at Vienna University. The effort, he said, is a "pushback against the self-regulatory impulses of these platforms."Facebook said in a statement that the European court 's decision "undermines the longstanding principle that one country does not have the right to impose its laws on speech on another country."It added that the judgment raised questions about freedom of expression and "the role that internet companies should play in monitoring, interpreting and removing speech that might be illegal in any particular country."The court said on Thursday that while Facebook wasn 't liable for the disparaging comments posted the company had an obligation to take them down after an Austrian court found them defamatory. Facebook, the court said, "did not act expeditiously to remove or to disable access to that information."The court left to national court systems in each European Union country to decide what cases merit forcing an internet company to take down content in foreign countries. That raised questions about what other laws Facebook and other internet platforms can be forced to comply with by governments in Europe.

Q. Which of the following statements can be attributed to the author?