Trespass to person and Trespass to Land for CLAT - Practice Questions & MCQ

Read the passage and answer the question

 In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sivasankara Pillai (1995 (1) KLT 51), it was held that the Tribunal is required to make an apportionment of compensation awarded against each of the owners of the vehicle in proportion to the negligence of respective drivers. It was also held that when two vehicles are involved, and an accident happens due to the negligence of both drivers, they are not joint tortfeasors. Earlier decisions in 1988 (2) KLT 871 and 1989 (2) KLT 227 were also explained and distinguished as, in this case, arguments were placed by both sides as both parties are joint tortfeasors. But, there are several tortfeasors. In the case decided in 1993 (2) KLT 777, only the driver was not implemented. But, the owner was impeached. The owner is liable for the liability only to the extent of negligence of the driver. Therefore, the driver and owner of the same vehicle are joint tortfeasors. The owner and driver of another vehicle involved in the accident can only be one of the several tortfeasors. If two vehicles are involved and only if one vehicle's driver and owner are made parties, no liability can be cast on the other party directly or indirectly without implementing them. If he was made a party, he would have got an opportunity that he is not at all responsible for the accident or amount claimed is high. In this case, the accident occurred on 19-10-1992. 13 years have passed. Driver, owner, and insurance company are not parties.

The Tribunal held that the liability of the bus driver is 50%. If the contention of the appellant is accepted, the insurance company can be directed to deposit the entire amount and recover 50% of the amount from the owner of the lorry. If it is done, the liability will be mulcted on them without affording them an opportunity to defend their case. Even if notice is issued at this distance of time, it may not be possible for the owner of the lorry to remember who was the driver at that time and to find out his address. He also may not remember who is the insurer of the lorry at that time. He may not also be able to produce any evidence at this distance of time by citing witnesses to prove negligence. Records also may not be available in the police station after about more than 13 years. The bus driver, owner, and insurer were made as parties. After considering the evidence, the bus driver (R2) was found to be 50% negligent, and the owner of the bus, being vicariously liable, was also made liable for paying 50% of the compensation granted jointly and severally being joint tortfeasors and insurance company was directed to indemnify it.

 Question

On the occasion of Diwali, P and Q brought fire-crackers to celebrate. In the evening, a few other members residing in the locality also joined P and Q to celebrate Diwali together. P and Q started to fire the crackers as a part of the celebration. However, they were negligent in firing crackers which could hurt others. Meanwhile, due to crackers fired by P and Q, the cracker went straight inside another building, and the woman residing in that building sustained severe burns. Determine the liability of P and Q.

Read the passage and answer the question

 In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sivasankara Pillai (1995 (1) KLT 51), it was held that the Tribunal is required to make an apportionment of compensation awarded against each of the owners of the vehicle in proportion to the negligence of respective drivers. It was also held that when two vehicles are involved, and an accident happens due to the negligence of both drivers, they are not joint tortfeasors. Earlier decisions in 1988 (2) KLT 871 and 1989 (2) KLT 227 were also explained and distinguished as, in this case, arguments were placed by both sides as both parties are joint tortfeasors. But, there are several tortfeasors. In the case decided in 1993 (2) KLT 777, only the driver was not implemented. But, the owner was impeached. The owner is liable for the liability only to the extent of negligence of the driver. Therefore, the driver and owner of the same vehicle are joint tortfeasors. The owner and driver of another vehicle involved in the accident can only be one of the several tortfeasors. If two vehicles are involved and only if one vehicle's driver and owner are made parties, no liability can be cast on the other party directly or indirectly without implementing them. If he was made a party, he would have got an opportunity that he is not at all responsible for the accident or amount claimed is high. In this case, the accident occurred on 19-10-1992. 13 years have passed. Driver, owner, and insurance company are not parties.

The Tribunal held that the liability of the bus driver is 50%. If the contention of the appellant is accepted, the insurance company can be directed to deposit the entire amount and recover 50% of the amount from the owner of the lorry. If it is done, the liability will be mulcted on them without affording them an opportunity to defend their case. Even if notice is issued at this distance of time, it may not be possible for the owner of the lorry to remember who was the driver at that time and to find out his address. He also may not remember who is the insurer of the lorry at that time. He may not also be able to produce any evidence at this distance of time by citing witnesses to prove negligence. Records also may not be available in the police station after about more than 13 years. The bus driver, owner, and insurer were made as parties. After considering the evidence, the bus driver (R2) was found to be 50% negligent, and the owner of the bus, being vicariously liable, was also made liable for paying 50% of the compensation granted jointly and severally being joint tortfeasors and insurance company was directed to indemnify it.

 Question

 X, a resident in the Kayam Nagar area of Rampur, wrote two letters, one to the member of the council and the other to the editor of the magazine, "The Villager", as an official organ of the Kayam Nagar Association. The magazine published "The Villager" as desired by X. Those letters were found to be defamatory against one Y.

Who can Y hold liable for publishing the defamatory letters?

Read the following passage carefully and answer the question

Under the tort of negligence, there are four elements a plaintiff must establish to succeed in holding a defendant liable. The Court of Appeals of Georgia outlined the elements for a prima facie case of negligence in Johnson v. American National Red Cross as follows: "(1) a legal duty to conform to a standard of conduct; (2) a breach of this duty; (3) a causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) damage to the plaintiff." Under the first element, a legal duty to a standard of due care, the plaintiff must prove the defendant had a duty to conform to a standard of conduct for the protection of the plaintiff against an unreasonable risk of injury. The duty of care will be determined by the applicable standard of care, and several factors can heighten the standard of care depending upon the relationship between the parties, whether the plaintiff was foreseeable, the profession of the defendant, etc. For example, the Red Cross has a duty, when supplying blood donations to hospitals, to do its best to ensure blood supplied is not tainted with any transferable viruses or diseases, such as an undetectable rare strain of HIV. A breach of the duty of care occurs when the defendant's actions do not meet the required level of the applicable standard of care due to the plaintiff. Whether a breach of the duty of the applicable standard of care occurs is a question for the trier of fact. There are several ways a plaintiff demonstrates a breach of the duty of care; these include actions against the custom in an industry, violation of a statute or, in some cases, res ipsa loquitor. Res ipsa loquitor permits the mere fact that damages occurred, with some additional evidence presented by the plaintiff, to show, therefore, that a breach of the duty must have occurred. After demonstrating there was a duty, and it has been breached by the defendant's conduct, the plaintiff must prove his or her injuries were caused by such negligent conduct. To hold the defendant liable for such negligent conduct causing injuries, the plaintiff must prove actual cause and proximate cause.

To show actual cause, the plaintiff must prove that, but for the defendant's negligent conduct, which could be either the defendant's Act or omission to act if the situation or relationship required action by the defendant, the injuries or damages would not have occurred. The proximate cause of the injury is the legal causation aspect of this element which follows the chain of events from the negligent conduct to the damages.

Question

A, who is a railway station employee, sees that B has left his bag on the station, and to help B, he throws the bag towards the moving train. However, the bag contained fireworks which exploded and caused injury to another passenger C. Decide.

Read the following passage and answer the questions given below.

Under the tort of negligence, there are four elements a plaintiff must establish to succeed in holding a defendant liable. The Court of Appeals of Georgia outlined the elements for a prima facie case of negligence in Johnson v. American National Red Cross as follows: “(1) a legal duty to conform to a standard of conduct; (2) a breach of this duty; (3) a causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) damage to the plaintiff.” Under the first element, a legal duty to a standard of due care, the plaintiff must prove the defendant had a duty to conform to a standard of conduct for protection of the plaintiff against an unreasonable risk of injury. The duty of care will be determined by the applicable standard of care and several factors can heighten the standard of care depending upon the relationship between the parties, whether the plaintiff was foreseeable, the profession of the defendant, etc. For example, the Red Cross has a duty, when supplying blood donations to hospitals, to make its best efforts to ensure blood supplied is not tainted with any transferable viruses or diseases, such as an undetectable rare strain of HIV. A breach of the duty of care occurs when the defendant’s actions do not meet the required level of applicable standard of care due to the plaintiff. Whether a breach of the duty of the applicable standard of care occurs is a question for the trier of fact. There are several ways a plaintiff demonstrates breach of the duty of care; these include actions against the custom in an industry, violation of a statute or in some cases, res ipsa loquitor. Res ipsa loquitor permits the mere fact that damages occurred, with some additional evidence presented by plaintiff, to show therefore that a breach of the duty must have occurred. After demonstrating there was a duty and it has been breached by defendant’s conduct, the plaintiff must prove his or her injuries were caused by such negligent conduct. To hold the defendant liable for such negligent conduct causing injuries, the plaintiff must prove actual cause and proximate cause. 

To show actual cause, the plaintiff must prove that but for the defendant’s negligent conduct, which could be either the defendant’s act or omission to act if the situation or relationship required action by the defendant, the injuries or damages would not have occurred. Proximate cause of the injury is the legal causation aspect of this element which follows the chain of events from the negligent conduct to the damages. Damage is the final element that must be proven to succeed in a negligence action; damages will not be presumed in a case. If the plaintiff does not demonstrate damages were suffered as a result of the defendant’s negligence, the defendant will not be held liable for the tort of negligence. In Johnson, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s holding in favor of the Red Cross because it was not established the late Bernice Mantooth suffered any damages as a result her receiving two units of blood that the Red Cross provided which potentially was tainted with a rare undetectable strain of HIV.

Question: Which of the following is not an essential to prove Negligence?

As the bus was leaving the platform, Babu rushed and boarded the bus keeping the door open. Inder, who was standing at the edge of the platform, was hit by the door of the moving bus and was injured. Inder takes Babu to court demanding monetary compensation.