LEGAL APTITUDE1. Dr. Ramayya took his car to Dolphin Co. Ltd., a garage which he had been frequenting, for servicing. Since Dolphin Co. Ltd., was out of the way, Dr. Ramayya requested the owner to drop him near a bus terminal so that he may get back to his work. The owner directed a mechanic by name Shankar to drop Dr. Ramayya in the same car which he had brought for servicing and bring the car back. On the way, the car collided with a lorry, due to the negligence of Shankar. The owner of the lorry, James is seeking the legal advice as to the course of action. Principle: Where the owner of a vehicle, being himself in possession and occupation of it, requests or allows another person to drive, the owner is liable as principal for damage caused by the person actually driving. (a) Dr. Ramayya is liable, because the car belongs to him and he requested for the assistance of Shankar. (b) Dolphin Co. Ltd. is liable, because Shankar is their driver. (c)Dr. Ramayya is liable, because he could have asked Shankar to drive carefully. (d) Dolphin Co. Ltd., is liable, because, the car is entrusted to their care.

2.Facts: Tiwari is a servant of Ajit. On his way to Ajit's house to report for duty, he goes to have a cup of coffee. There he sees Singh and accuses Mr. Singh of being a dishonest person. Mr. Singh wants to sue Ajit, as Tiwari is Ajit's servant. Principles: 1. Master is liable for the wrongful acts committed by servants, in the course of their employment if third parties suffer damages in consequences. 2. However the master is not liable if the wrongful act committed by the servant .has no connection whatsoever with the servant's contract of employment. 3. If a person by an act lowers the reputation of another in the eye of right thinking people, then the person who suffered loss of reputation can sue for damages. Answers! (a) Ajit is liable because Tiwari defamed Singh. (b) Ajit is not liable as the defamation was not in -the course of Tiwari's employment. (c) Ajit is liable even though the defamation was not in the course of employment. (d) None of the above answers is correct.

3. Facts: Hanuman Stores sent certain items in a horse carriage to a customer's house, which happened to be by the side of a main road and near a school zone. The driver of the carriage delivered the items to the customers and went_ inside the house to collect the receipt, leaving the; carriage unattended on the road. Some naughty children of nearby school threw stones at the horses. The horses ran in confusion and they were about to run over an old woman. A traffic police, at great risk to his life, somehow seized the horses and stopped the carriage. He suffered serious personal injuries in the process. The policeman seeks compensation from Hanuman Stores. Principles: 1. Whoever is under a duty of care to another shall be liable for any injury to the latter directly resulting from the breach of that duty.' (2) Hann suffered voluntarily does not constitute legal injury, Answers: (a) Hanuman Stores is not liable, because they do not owe a duty of care to the old woman or policeman. (b).Hanuman Stores is not liable because song naughty children scared away their horses (c) The policeman cannot succeed, because he suffered injury voluntarily. (d). The policeman can succeed, because he owed a duty of care to old woman.

4. Facts: Mohan promised to take Sunday out for a dinner in Chola Sheraton.; Even after two weeks, Mohan did not fulfill the promise. Sunday wants to sue Mohan to enforce that promise. Principles: (1) An agreement enforceable in a court of law is a contract. (2) In order for-an agreement to be enforceable in a court of law, there must be a meeting of minds between both the parties. (3) Parties to a contract should do something for the other party. The obligation to do something for the other party is mutual. This is called 'consideration' and absence of consideration renders the contract unenforceable, If- Sundar goes to court: Answers: (a) he can compel Mohan to buy him a dinner at Chola Sheraton. (b) he can recover the value of dinner from Mohan (c) This 'promise will not enforced by a Court of Law as there is no consideration from Sundar. (d)" None 'of the above

5. Facts: The Consolidated Motors was a firm dealing with second hand cars. Suresh came to the office of the firm and offered to sell their cars, provided: he would get 8% commission -on cars sold by him. The Consolidated Motors agreed to the proposition. One day, Suresh took out a car for the purpose of demonstration to a prospective client and in the course of demonstration; he knocked down Ramesh and injured him. Ramesh is seeking legal remedy. The main issue is whether Suresh is an agent of Consolidated Motors. Principles: (1) A Principal shall be liable for all the acts of his agent done in the course of employment. (2) A shall be considered as an agent of B, provided that: B remunerates A and B has direction and control over what A is doing. Answers: (a)Suresh is the, agent of Consolidated Motors, because he gets remuneration by way of commission.- (b) Suresh is not the agent, of Consolidated Motors, because the commission it not the same as remuneration. (c) Suresh is not the agent of Consolidated Motors because the latter do not have control over his activities.

6. Facts: Krishna was walking on a lonely road. Maniyan came with a knife and said to Krishna, "Your life or your purse". Krishna pulled out his revolver. On seeing it, Maniyan ran. Krishna shot Maniyan in his legs. Principles: (1) Any person may use reasonable force in order to protect his property or person. (2) However, the force employed must be proportionate to the apprehended danger. Answers: (a) Krishna will not be punished as there was danger to his property. (b) Krishna will not be punished as the force he used was proportionate to the apprehended injury. (c) Krishna 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 Krishna's property so Krishna will be punished.

7. Facts: Shaila Devi opened a S.B. Account with Oriental-Bank, and a cousin of herby name Mohan, who was a clerk in that Bank, helped her to complete the formalities. Subsequently she used to entrust whatever money she was getting to Mohan along with her pass book and Mohan used to return the pass book with the relevant entries. One day Shaila Devi discovered that Mohan, instead of crediting the money to her account, had been misappropriating, and the entries in the pass book were made by him without authorisation. Shaila Devi seeks compensation from Oriental Bank. Principles: A master shall be liable for the fraudulent acts committed by his servant in the course of employment. Answers: (a) Oriental Bank shall be liable because Mohan was acting in the course of employment. (b) Oriental Bank shall not be liable because Mohan was not acting in the course of employment (c )Oriental Bank was not liable because shaila devi was negligent

8. A master shall be liable for the acts of his servants done in the course of employment. HMT, a public sector undertaking, is operating a number of bus services for its employees in Bangalore. These buses are quite -distinct in their appearance and carry the board "for HMT employees only". M, a villager from neighbouring state, was waiting fora regular bus in one of the bus stops in Bangalore. A bus belonging to HMT happened to stop nearby and a number of people got into the bus. M, without realising that it was HMT bus, got into the bus and soon thereafter, the bus met with an accident due to the driver's negligence. M, along with several others, was injured in the accident. M seeks to file a suit against HMT claiming damages. (a) M will succeed, because he got into the bus without realising that it was HMT bus; (b) M will not succeed, because it was for him to find out whether it was a public transport; (c) M, will succeed, because the driver was anyhow duty-bound to drive carefully. 9. A partner shall share 'with other partners whatever profit he, makes in the course of partnership business. P, a partner in a Bangalore firm engaged in textile business, went to a nearby place to buy some silk sarees. The manufacturers therein told him: "If you buy 500 sarees, you will get a discount of Rs. 50 in each saree". P in fact required only 400 sarees for his firm; nevertheless he bought 500 sarees and kept 100 sarees for himself. After sometime, he on his own sold ,100 sarees and made -a good profit. Other partners demand that he should share these profits with them. (a) P has to share the profits, because he- bought those 100 sarees in the course of partnership business. (b) P need not share it, because he has already benefited the firm by getting a substantial discount in the purchases. (c) P need not share the profits, because his additional buying of 100 sarees was to get the discount and help the firm.

10. Under Indian Constitution, everybody shall be equal before law. The Income Tax. Act happens to provide that those whose annual income is upto Rs. 60,000/- shall pay 10% of their income as tax; and those whose annual income exceeds Rs. 60,000/- shall pay the tax at the rate of 20%. Those citizens whose annual income exceeds Rs. 60,000/- challenge this Legislation on the ground that it is a violation of the principle of equality before law., (a) They will succeed, because the law discriminates against the people who earn more than Rs. 60,000/- per annurn. (b) They will not succeed, because the people who earn more than Rs. 60,000/- are not equal to the people who earn less than Rs. 60,000/-(c) They will not succeed, because this law enables the Government to equalise the incomes of all the people in the country.

11. A goes to grocery shop of B which he frequents quite often for his requirements. A: I want ten bags of old rice. B: Here is the rice you are looking for. A buys ten bags of rice from B and subsequently discovers that the rice supplied is not really old. A files a suit against B. (a) A will not succeed, because .B did not promise him to supply old rice. (b) A will succeed, because B had agreed to supply the rice of A's specifications. (c) A will not succeed, because A should have verified the quality of rice himself.

12. A is running a poly clinic well-equipped with operation theatres and supporting staff. S is surgeon who makes use of this polyclinic to operate his patients. While operating a patient P, due to the negligence of nurse N (who was a support staff of polyclinic), the surgical knife was' left inside the abdomen of P. As a result, P developed several complications. Advise P as to against whom i.e. A or S, he should file the suit for damages. (a) should be sued, because N was the staff nurse in his polyclinic. (b) S should be sued, because he was responsible for whatever was done during the operation. (c) S should. be sued, because he should have selected a better staff nurse.

13. An adopted child shall be deemed to be the child of the adoptive parents with effect from 'the date of adoption, and from this date, the child's relations with the natural parents shall be replaced by its relations with the adopted parents.X was born into a prosperous Hindu joint family. Under Hindu law, X is entitled to a share, in the property inherited by his (i.e. X's) father front his'(i.e. Xs) grandfather. X was given in adoption to another person, namely M. After this adoption, there was partition in the erstwhile family of X. X claimed a share in the course of partition. (a) X will succeed, because by virtue of being born into the family, X should.get a share in the family property. (b) X will not succeed, because he is entitled-to the properties of the adoptive parents only.

14. No one can accept a proposal without any knowledge thereof. Ramesh proposed to give a reward of Rs. 1000/- to anyone informing him the whereabouts of his lost dog. The proposal was printed in a daily newspaper by name "The Daily Observer% on 1.1. 4994. On 3rd January, Rahim, a friendof Ramesh, happened to see the dog and informed Ramesh about it. Ramesh immediately rushed to the spot and collected the dog. At that time, neither Rahim knew abput the award (since he was not a regular reader-of "The Daily Observer"), nor Ramesh mentioned anything about the award. On the 5th January, Rahim came to know about the announcement of the award through a friend of him and he demanded the reward of Rs. 1000/- from Ramesh. Ramesh refused to pay. (a) Ramesh has to pay the amount, because he had promised to pay the amount to anyone giving the information about the dog. (b) Ramesh need not pay the amount, because he had given the information without knowing about the reward. (c) Ramesh need not pay the amount .because the promise was made only to t he readers of "The Daily Observer".

15. Whoever, intending to take. dishonestly any property out of the possession of another person, moves that property for such taking, is said to commit theft. Suresh went into the house of his friend Ramesh to discuss some important matter. Since Ramesh was not at home, Suresh waited for him in the lattees,drawing room. When Ramesh did not turn up Suresh took out a pen from Ramesh's table and wrote down a message and went home. While going back, by force of habit, he just dropped the pen into the pocket. Subsequently, he forgot about it. Since the pen happened to be very valuable one, Ramesh complained to the police and the police traced the pen in Suresh's house. (a) Suresh committed theft because he took the pen without Ramesh's consent. (b) Suresh committed theft, because he failed to return the pen. (c) Suresh did not commit theft, because he did not have the dishonest intention.

16. A person, who through his words or actions leads others to belief that he is associated with a partnership business shall be liable to the acts of partnership firm. A and B were running a partnership business in a small town. When the business ran into 156 difficulties, A and B raised a loan from a local bank and R, an influential man of the locality stood as a guarantor. D came to know of this transaction, and subsequently D happened to advance Rs. 50,0001- to. the partnership business believing that R was associated with the business as partner. But when the firm failed to repay the amount, D brought a suit against R. for the repayment. (a) R is liable, because through his conduct as a guarantor, he led D to believe. that he was associated with the partnership business. (b) R is not liable, because the act of guaranteeing extends only to a particular.. transaction. (c) R is not liable, because he never intended D to associate him (i.e. R) with the business.

17. A partner has implied authority to 'raise a loan on behalf of the partnership business, if it is necessary in the usual course of business.A, B and C are partners in a firm of Chartered Accountants. They had agreed that none of them would contract a loan in the name of the firm without the consent of all the partners. Nevertheless, A took a loan from a Bank in the name of the firm and spent the money for his personal purposes. The Bank demanded the repayment from the partnership firm. (a) The partnership firm is not liable, because the partners had unanimously agreed that none of them would raise a loan in the name of the firm. (b) The partnership firm is not liable, because raising a loan is not in the usual course of business in this case. (c) The partnership firm is liable because A had acted as a partner while raising the loan. 19. "Volenti non fit injuria", a well-established legal principle, means that a person has no legal remedy for the injury caused by an act to which lie has consented. An old lady was walking in a narrow one-way lane in the opposite direction. It was night time and there was no street-lighting. A car moving in right direction but without headlights knocked her down since the driver could not see-her. She filed a suit against the driver. (a) She. would lose, because she violated the traffic'rules in the first instance. (b) She would lose, because, she voluntarily exposed herself to the risks. (c) The,driver would lose, because lie drove without proper headlights.

20. A master will be liable for the wrongful acts of his servants in the course of employment. Raman has a regular S.B. Account in Karnataka Bank in which he used to deposit money from time to time. One day, when he wanted to withdraw some big amount, he discovered that two entries in his pass book, immediately prior to the date of withdrawal, were not authenticated by the manager, as required under Banking Rules. The Bank declined the responsibility for these entries and the Manager disclaimed any knowledge in this regard. Raman filed a suit against the Bank. (a) Raman will lose, because he should have taken care that the entries were authenticated. (b) Raman will lose, because the Manager was not aware of the issue. (c) Raman will win, because it was for the Manager to ensure the authentication.

21.An employer shall be liable to the injuries caused to his employee by the negligence of a fellow employee in the course of employment. Kannappa and Veerappa were two employees working in the textile factory of Gokuldas.' One day, Kannappa came to the factory in an inebriated stage and his hands were not steady while operating the machine. As a result, Veerappa who just happened to go near. the machine for some work got injured. He filed a suit against Gokuldas for compensation. a) Gokuldas will be liable, hecause Veerappa was injured by Kannappa's act in the course of employment;b) Gokuldas will not be liable, because he was not responsible for Kannappa's inebriated condition; c) Gokuldas will not be liable, because Veerappa himself should have been careful while going near Kannappa.

22. A master will be liable to the act of his servants in the course of employment. Hanuman was a driver employed by Hindustan Petroleum to drive their petrol lorries. He was strictly forbidden from smoking in the course of employment. That warning was printed on the body of the vehicle he was driving. One day when he was transferring petrol from his tank to the underground tank of Maruthi Filling Station, he struck a match to. light a cigarette and threw it on the floor. It caused an explosion damaging the properties of Maruthi Filling Station. Maruthi Filling Station filed a suit against Hindustan Petroleum claiming damages., a)Hindustan Petroleum will have to pay, because Hanuman struck the match in the course of employment; b) Hindustan Petroleum will not be liable because he was clearly forbidden from, smoking by them; c) Hindustan Petroleum will not be liable, because Maruthi Filling Station should have prevented him from smoking.-

23. A master will be liable for the negligent acts of his servant in the course of employment. Samuel was a driver employed by Kohinoor Company to drive their luxury buses during the night: Mohammed has been his assistant over a period of time. One night, when he was driving be felt terribly sleepy and he handed over the steering-wheel to Mohammed and dozed off. The bus hit against a car coming from the opposite side due to the inexperience of Mohammed. The owner of the car filed a suit against Kohinoor. (a) Kohinoor will he liable, because it was improper on the part of Samuel to ask Mohammed to drive; (b) Kohinoor will not be liable to pay, because Samuel was not supposed to ask Mohammed to drive; (c) Kohinoor will be liable, because Mohammed was also an employee of Kohinoor.

24. A person is guilty of culpable homicide amounting to murder, if the. act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death. A was hiding behind a bush to catch some rabbits. B also came to the same place for hunting with his gun. When B noticed some movements near the bush, lie thought that it was. an animal and fired a shot. A was killed by the shot: The police sought to prosecute B for murder. (a) B would not be liable for murder, because he did not have the intention to kill A. (b) B would be liable for murder because he should have taken care to find out the target before shooting. (c) B would not be liable for murder, because it was too much to expect B to identify 'the target before shooting.

25. A person commits cheating, when he fraudulently induces another person to deliver the latter's property to him. A falsely represented to B, a shop-owner that he was an officer from the Sales Tax Department. In the course of going through the vouchers, A expressed his interest to buy, a costly television on instalment basis. B readily agreed hoping that Tie would get a favourable assessment from A regarding his tax liability. A paid the first instalment and took the T.V. and disappeared. The police somehow managed to arrest him and sought to prosecute him for cheating. (a) A committed cheating, because he induced B to part with the T.V., posing himself as a sales-tax officer; (b) A committed cheating, because he did not pay the subsequent instalment; (c) A did not commit cheating, because B handed over the T.V. to him order to get favourable assessment.

26. A man would be responsible for all direct consequences of his act, in so far as he could reasonably foresee them as arising from his act. A ship carrying petroleum was moving on the high sea. On a short halt in a port, the master of the ship engaged some stevedore to load some metallic planks onto the ship. While loading the planks, a plank slipped from the -hands of stevedor and the spark, emitted thereby, ignited petroleum vapour and caused considerable damage to the goods. The owner of the goods filled a suit against the master of the ship. (a) The master of the ship is not liable, because he was not responsible for the act of stevedor. (b) The master of the ship is liable, because he is responsible for the acts of stevedor since he engaged them. (c) The master is liable, because he should have foreseen the consequences of the stevedor's act.

27.A man is guilty of culpable homicide amounting to murder, if the act which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing murder.. A is suffering from jaundice and inflammation of the brain and B-knowthis condition very well. Once they had a heated argument on some issue and A slapped B in anger. B lost his self-control and dealt a severe blow on A's head. Asa result, A died. The police sought,to prosecute B for murder. (a) B was liable for murder, because he knew A's delicate condition. (b) B was not liable for murder, because he acted in self defence. (c) B was not liable for murder, because he did not have the intention to kill A.

28. An occupier is liable to a trespasser in respect of some wilful act intended to cause harm or done with reckless disregard. Sakalchand, the owner of a warehouse, got the fence electrified on account of his legitimate fear of dacoity. There was a clearwarning about the electrified fencing. There was a playground nearby wherein the children had been playing over a period of time. One day, the cricket ball of the children went into the fence and a child running after the ball touched the fence inadvertently. The child suffered from. the shock. The parents of the child filed a suit against Sakalchand. (a) Sakalchand will not be liable, because the child was a trespasser. (b) Sakalchand. will not be liable, because his fencing was legitimate. (c) Sakalchand will be liable, because he must have taken note of the adjacent playground.

29. Everybody is under,a legal obligation to take reasonable care to avoid act or omission which he can foresee would injure his neighbour. The neighbour for this purpose is any person whom he should have in his mind as likely to be affected by his act. Ram, while rushing to board a moving train, pushed Shyam who was walking along with a heavy package, containing fire crackers.. As a result, the package slipped from his hand and the crackers exploded injuring a boy-standing closely. A suit was filed against Ram, by the boy, claiming damages. (a) Ram is not liable, because he did not know anything about the contents of the package. (b) Ram is not liable, because Shyam should not have carried such a package.in a crowded place like Railway station. (c) Ram is liable, because Ram is under an obligation not to push Shyam.

30. The legal principle is the same as above. Krishnan, while driving his car at a high speed in a crowded road, knocked down a cyclist. The cyclist died on the spot with a lot of blood spilling around. Lakshmi, a pregnant woman passing by, suffered from a nervous shock, leading to abortion. Lakshmi filed a suit against Krishnan claiming damages. (a) Krishnan will be liable, because he owed a duty of reasonable care to everybody on,the road including Lakshmi. (b) Krishnan will not be liable, because he could not have foreseen Lakshmi suffering from nervous shock as a result of his act. (c) Krishnan will be liable, to Lakshmi because he failed to drive carefully.

31. A person is liable for all direct consequences of his act, which he could have reasonably foreseen as naturally flowing from his act Anant, while driving his scooter at a high speed, knocked down Shanker, a middle-aged person, walking on the road. Shankar broke his leg as a result of the accident. But since Shankar was suffering from diabetes, the leg had to be amputated. Shanker filed a suit against Anant for the loss of leg. (a) Anant is liable, since the loss of leg is directly attributable to his act. (b) Shanker is not liable for the loss of leg, since he did not know Shanker was suffering from diabetes. (c) Shanker is not liable, since a diabetes-patient like Shankar should not have walked on the road.

32. Nobody shall unlawfully interfere with a person's use or enjoyment of land, or some right over, or in connection with it. The use or enjoyment, envisaged herein, should be normal and reasonable taking, into account surrounding situation. Krishnan and Kannan were neighbours in a residential locality. Kannan started a typing class in a part of his house and this typing sound disturbed Krishnan who could not put up with any kind of continuous, noise. He filed a suit against Kannan. (a) Kannan is liable, because he should not have started typing classes in his house. (b) Kannan is liable, because as a neighbour, he should have realised. Krishnan's delicate nature. (c) Kannan is not liable, because typing sound did not disturb anyone else other than Krishnan.

33. An occupier is not, normally liable to a trespasser except in respect of wilful act intended to cause harm or done with reckless disregard. Jaspal, a richman of the locality had kept a ferocious dog to guard his house. He strictly instructed all his servants not to go near that dog and there.was a special aftender who was to take care of the dog. There was a prominent board warning the visitors about the ferocious dog. One day, a twelve year old boy playing in the neighbourhood, running after his ball got into the house. The dog attacked him and killed him. Jaspal was sued for damages. (a) Jaspal is not liable, because the.boy was a trespasser.- (b) Jaspal is not liable, because a twelves year boy ought to have known about the presence of the ferocious dog. (c) Jaspal is liable for the negligence of his servant to keep watch on such a ferocious dog during the day time.

34. A master will be liable for the wrongful acts of his servants in the course of employment. Ramadevi. was an old widow who opened an .account with the Syndicate Bank, whereunder she would deposit Rs.5 everyday in the Bank. Sundar was the neighbour who used to collect the amounts and deposit them in the Bank. Sundar would-get a small commission from theBank for the money deposited.It was discovered one day that Sundar for more than three months did not deposit the money and vanished with that money. Ramadevi filed a suit against Syndicate Bank. (a) Syndicate Bank would not be liable, because Sundar was not its employee. (b) Syndicate Bank-would not be liable for the failure of Ramadevi to check the status of her accounts. (c) Syndicate Bank would be liable, -because Sundar was paid commission by the Bank for doing its work.

35. Contract is an agreement freely entered- into between the parties. RaIrIal was a dealer in cement. The Government of India, by an order issued under the Essential Commodities Act, fixed-the price of cement, and also the quantity which a person can buy, from the dealer. Ramlal carried on his business under this new order for sometime, but he refused to pay the sales tax on his sale transactions on the ground that these were not the contracts freely entered into by him.. (a) Ramlal would succeed, because the price and quantity were not negotiated by him (b) Ramlal would not succeed, because free consent between the parties were there despite the restriction on price and quantity. (c) Ramlal would succeed, because the Government under the new order, forced him to enter into contracts.

36. 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 ari 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. (a) Sakalchand is not liable, because he did not invite the postman to- his house. (b) , Sakalchand Is not liable, because it was for- the .postman to take care of himself. (c) Sakalchand is liable, because' the postman came into the premises in the course of his duty.

37. The occupier of a premise owes a duty of care to all his invitees and visitors. Kishanlal was running a dairy farm in his house. A part of his farm was used by the people as a short cut to get into the nearby railways station. Kishanlal never liked it and put up a board that "All trespassers will be prosecuted". But he actually tolerated them, because quite a few of them patronised his-business. One day, a pierson,who was crossing the farm to get into the railway station.was attacked by a bull belonging to the farm. The 4njured person filed a suit against Kishanlal. (a) Kishanlal is not liable in view of the clear notice against trespassers. (b) Kishanlal is liable, because he in fact allowed the people to use his premises. (c) Kishanlal is not liable to the people other than his customers.

38. The legal principle is same as the earlier one. Kisharichand arranged a cocktail for.his friends in his farm house with nice gardens- and a swimming pool. The area of swimming. ;pool was, .brightly lit and the pool had sufficient enclosures. one, of the guests, in his inebriated condition,strayed into the area of swimming pool and fell into the pool, and suffered injuries. He filed a suit against Kishanchand claiming damages. 1. Kishanchand is -not liable, because he invited the: guests only for the party and not for the swimming. (b) ishanchand cannot be held responsible for the drinking -propensities of his friends.- (C). Kishanchand as a host would be responsible to take care guests when. they are in his premises.

39. Facts Krishna goes to Raas Leela bar in Bangalore to have a good time. He meets a girl called Radha there. Eager to impress her, he decides to buy her a drink and signals to the bartender to effect his plan. The bartender, Mr. Jarasandh, gives the drink directly to Radha. After she drinks half of it, she finds that there is a dead cockroach in the glass. She falls ill as a result. Radha sues the bar for damages.Principle-According to the Consumer Protection Act of Karnataka, only the purchaser has the right to approach the court for redressal for damages incurred in the course of consumption of goods.Explanation-Goods are deemed to be consumed when they are put to any use a reasonable person would put them to.a)The bar is liable.b)The bar is not liable to pay damages to Radha.c)The bar cannot be held liable in any case as Krishna didnt pay for the drink. d)The brewery which bottled the drink should be liable.

40. Facts-Yudhishtira owns a large piece of land called Indraprastha estate where he stores a lot of water for purposes of entertainment. This water is stored in an old tank. Once this water broke the embankment of the tank and flooded the adjacent Hastinapur estate owned by Duryodhana and caused some damage to his crops. Duryodhana had always been waiting to create some trouble for Yudhishtira and used this opportunity to sue him.Principle-Whoever brings on to his land a dangerous thing which on escaping can cause damage is liable for any damage that may occur due to escape of dangerous thing.Explanation-A Dangerous thing is anything capable of causing great harm.a) Yudhishtira is not liable because Duryodhana is maliciously suing him.b) Yudhishtira is not liable because water is not a dangerous thing.c) Yudhishtira is liable because the water stored for his benefit has caused damage.d) Yudhishtira is not liable because he was putting the land to natural use.

41.Shri Lalarai is walking down the street in Lajpat Nagar. All of a sudden, the police ask people to clear out from the area. Before Lalarai has an opportunity to get away, one of the policemen hits him with a lathi and he sustains severe damage. He now wants to sue the Government for damages.Principle-The Government cant be held liable for acts performed by its servants in carrying out the duty of the State.Explanation-The duties of the State are functions of the Government that only a Government can carry out and cannot be given out to the private sector.a) The Government cannot be held liable because they gave sufficient warning.b) The Government is liable because Lalarai was unfairly injured.c) The Government is not liable because policing an area is a duty of the State.d) The Government may be held liable, but Lalarai was also negligent.

42. Humayun likes going to the library a lot. The stairs of the library are very steep and slippery and one has to go carefully. One day, he is on the verge of delaying returning a book and may consequently be fined for it. When climbing up the stairs of the library, he slips and falls. He now wants to sue the library.Principle-Everyone owes a duty of care to his neighbor.Explanation-Duty of care implies an obligation upon one person to take reasonable precautions to ensure harm isnt caused to the other person by the first person.a) The Library is not liable because Humayun knew that the library stairs were slippery and should have taken care.b) The library is liable.c) Library is liable but Humayun also has contributed.d) Library is not liable because Humayun was in a hurry and must have been running carelessly.

43. Jawahar and Jinnah are neighbors. Jawahar is a politician and a great orator. He keeps practicing his speeches quite loudly at all hours of the night. Jinnah is disturbed by this and cannot sleep. He decides to sue Jawahar.Principle-Nuisance is the interference with the normal enjoyment of ones property.Explanation-Interference can either be direct physical interference or indirect interference.a)Jawahar is not liable for nuisance because he is pursuing a nationalist cause.b)Jawahar is liable because the content of his speeches is likely to make Jinnah angry.c)Jawahar is liable provided that Jinnah is not creating any nuisance of his own.d)Jawahar is liable.

44. Berlusconi is driving in his BMW car and hits the rear bumper of a large truck which is parked on a slope. This sets the truck in motion and it in turn knocks down a pedestrian, immediately killing him. The body of the pedestrian, which is severely mangled, is seen by Antonia who faints and suffers trauma. Antonia wants to sue Berlusconi.Principle-Every person is responsible for the direct and indirect effects of his actions provided it can be proved that the indirect effects were caused by an unbroken chain of causation.Explanation-Nobody can be held responsible for an act completely unrelated to his actions.a) Antonia can sue the truck owner alone.b) Antonia should sue the heirs of the dead pedestrian.c) Antonia can sue Berlusconi.d) Antonia cannot sue Berlusconi.

45. Krishna enters into a boxing match with Chanur. In the course of the boxing match Chanur sustains heavy injury to his brain and spine and subsequently dies. Chanurs family wants to claim damages from Krishna.Principle-When a person voluntarily undertakes an activity, he accepts all the risks that may normally be associated with that activity.Explanation-It is no defence to claim that the victim did not understand the risks fully and therefore was incapable of accepting risks.a) Krishna is liable because though Chanur agreed for a boxing match, he did not agree to be killed.b) Krishna is liable because he killed Chanur.c) Krishna is not liable because his intention was not to kill Chanur.d) Krishna is not liable because Chanur accepted the risks.

46. Mr. Dhritarashtra is a blind man. He depends heavily on his driver Sanjaya for getting around and for information. One day Sanajaya while driving Dhritarashtras car runs over a pedestrian who is severely injured. Treatment of the injuries takes a lot of time and money. What are the rights of the pedestrian? Principle-An employer is liable for the acts of his employee committed in the course of his employment, as long as it can be proved that the employer had certain degree of control over the employee.Explanation-The liability passes on to the employer in cases of tortious acts only.a) Dhritarashtra is liable.b) Dhritarashtra is not liable because he is a blind man who couldnt have controlled Sanjaya.c) Dhritarashtra is not liable because we do not know if he was in the car at the time of the accident.d) Dhritarashtra is not liable.

47. Ram sends his assistant Hanuman to the office of his rival company Ceylon Enterprises to deliver a courier. Due to some argument that crops up there, Hanuman gets angry and sets the office of Ceylon Enterprises on fire. The MD of Ceylon Enterprises, Meghnad wants to know his rights.Principle-An employer is liable for the negligent acts of his employee committed in the course of his employment, as long as it can be proved that the employer had certain degree of control over the employee.Explanation-The liability passes on to the employer in cases of tortious acts only.a) Ram is not liable for such acts of Hanuman.b) Ram is liable because Hanuman did this act on behalf of Ram.c) Ceylon enterprises should have known better than to irritate Hanuman who is a very powerful person.d) Ram is liable because he had sent Hanuman on his official work and it was in the course of this work that such an act was committed by Hanuman.

48. Mahabali was very busy one morning and was agitated regarding a business deal in which he had given away three plots of land to the dwarves society. In a heated argument with his adviser Shukracharya, in a fit of rage, he threw a pen at the adviser. Unfortunately the pen hit Shukracharya in the eye and he was blinded in one eye.Principle-A negligent act is one where a person commits an act which is normal in the usual course of events but commits it in such a manner as to endanger the personal safety or property of those around him.Explanation-A certain amount of carelessness is of essence in negligence.a) Mahabali has committed an act of negligence and is liable to Shukracharya for damages against him.b) Mahabali has not committed an act of negligence.c) Shukracharya can sue him for negligence, but should also simultaneously make a criminal complaint.d) Mahabali has committed negligence. This is evident from the damage he has caused.

49. Ben Ten Co. sends a bus around Dilli for its employees. Usually the driver stops the bus at various points in the city and employees of the company get on at different stops. On one such stop, Billu who is not an employee of the company, wrongfully gets on to the bus. The driver does not notice this and carries on. Subsequently the bus meets an accident due to the negligence of the driver and Billu is severely injured.Principle-Every person owes a duty of care to his neighbor.Explanation-Duty of care implies an obligation upon one person to take reasonable precautions to ensure harm isnt caused to the other person by the first person.a) Billu cannot claim damages because he was a trespasser.b) The driver and the company owe a duty of care to Billu.c) Billu is not the neighbor of the driver or the company.d) If Billu can prove that he got on to the bus by mistake and not with fraudulent intent, then he can claim damages.

50. Hyboria elects its executioners, a post which one cannot resign from after being elected. Bhim Singh (who was reluctant but was nominated by his neighbors) is wrongfully not allowed to vote by the presiding officer of the election. Nevertheless he wins by margin of one vote.Principle-Injuria sine damnum Applies when a legal right has been violated but no real damage has been caused.-Damnum sine Injuria Applies when damage has been caused but no legal right violated.Explanation-The former is actionable in law whereas the latter isnt.a) The facts in this case fall under Injuria sine Damnum.b) It falls either under Injuria sine damnum or Damnum sine Injuria.c) It falls under Damnum sine Injuria.d) None of the above.