Get Advice on Live Video Call
Earn $ Cash $ with
consultations on Bissoy App

Principle: A defendant is liable for all direct consequences of his act or omission, which he could have reasonably foreseen as naturally flowing from his action.<br>Factual Situation: A bus driver was driving a bus along the BRT corridor in New Delhi. At a Bus stand he carelessly drove the bus resulting in hitting a railing and crushing a Marshall on duty at the spot. A lady standing at a distance, on hearing about the accident rushed to the spot and saw the injured covered in blood, hanging on a piece of the railing. The sight terrified the lady and as a result she fainted and had to be treated for nervous shock. The lady on recovery filed a suit for compensation against the driver and the owner of the bus.

Correct Answer: She will not succeed as the driver could not have foreseen the illness of the lady who came to the site

Which of the following among item A and item B are correct?
The right of private defence extends, subject to Section 99, to the causing of death of the assailant or aggressor in the following circumstances:
Item A: For defence of body:
1. Against an act which reasonably causes the apprehension of an assault to outrage the modesty
2. Against an act which reasonably causes the apprehension that the assailant will kill his children living in another city
3. Against an act which reasonably causes the apprehension that grievous hurt would otherwise be the consequence
Item B: For defence of property:
1. While the trespasser is engaged in house breaking during day time.
2. Against a thief who reasonably causes the defender to believe that he would lose his property
3. Against a person who commits mischief under such circumstances as may reasonably cause apprehension that grievous Hurt would be a consequence
Select the correct answer:

Principle: A person has got a right to defend his life or that of any other person.
Factual Situation: Sonia was returning home from work at about 10:00 pm. The cab driver dropped her at the gate of her residence. Suddenly she heard a male voice telling her to hand over her purse and Mobile. She screamed to draw the attention of her driver but the driver did not hear her and drove away. When she looked back she saw a man pointing a dagger at her. She was about to hand over her purse to the man. Hearing her cries, her neighbour, Major Singh, a military officer, looked through his window and saw the scene. He took out his gun and shot the man dead, later identified as X.

A' is the owner of a furniture shop and 'B' is employed in that shop as a delivery-man. In which of the following cases, 'A' would be liable in a suit filed by the injured plaintiff 'C' for the action of 'B'?
Case 1. One day, 'B' was on his delivery route when he met his friend 'D'. 'D' requested 'B' to drop him at the railway station as he was getting late for the train. 'B' drove very fast and while returning back from the railway station, 'B' negligently ran over 'C'.
Case 2. One day, 'B' was on his delivery route when he met 'D'. As both had met after long time, 'B' decided to have lunch with his friend 'D'. 'B' drove out of his way to a nearby restaurant and had lunch there. While driving back from there, 'B' negligently ran over 'C'.

Principle: A person who voluntarily takes a decision to do something after appreciating the risk involved in such act and then receives an injury, will not be entitled to get any compensation.
Facts: 'X', an electrical engineer, was invited by his friend 'Y', to the factory where he was employed. While they were in the factory, 'Q' a worker in the factory informed 'Y' about some short-circuit in the power room. Hearing this, 'Y' asked 'X' to stay in the office room and rushed to the power room. 'X' however, decided to follow 'Y'. 'X' noticed that if the power supply through a particular electric line could be disconnected, the electrical leakage could be stopped which would prevent further damage. Suddenly 'X' decided to pullout the wire manually even though it was risky. This resulted in a blast in which both 'X' and 'Y' got injured. 'X' had to spend Rs. 1 lakh at the hospital for his treatment. 'X' wants to file a suit for compensation from the management of the factory. Will he succeed?

In a suit for partition, a Memorandum of Family Settlement is filed and on this basis the partition suit is decreed, but even after disposal of the suit the original Memorandum of Family Settlement remains in the file of the partition suit, then in such situation whether in a suit for eviction by one of the original co-owner of a tenant of a shop of the joint property which has fallen to the share of that co-owner as per the decree passed on the Memorandum of Family Settlement, can the certified copy of the Memorandum of Family Settlement be filed and proved as a public document in the suit against the tenant?

Principle: If an injury is the result of a reasonably foreseeable cause, the person/authority responsible is liable for damages because he has a duty to take reasonable measures to prevent it.
Facts: Janet, a housewife standing at her balcony, was struck on the head by a ball that flew out of a cricket field across her home. Janet sues the District Cricket Association (DCA), the owner of the cricket field for public nuisance and negligence on the ground that the field did not have a fence high enough to prevent such occurrence. District Cricket Association (DCA) claims that only about 10 balls had escaped the field in the previous 10 years and it was therefore an unforeseeable risk. Is there a duty on the part of the District Cricket Association (DCA) to prevent the risk? Is the District Cricket Association (DCA) liable to compensate Janet?

Principle: An occupier or owner of land owes a duty to warn a suspected trespasser of deadly conditions on the land which would be hidden to a trespasser, but of which the property owner is aware.
Factual Situation: Shiva, the owner of a Fire Cracker Factory owned a large plot of land, which he used for testing his crackers. One day while he was about to set fire to some special crackers, he noticed some children wandering on his land. Shiva did not pay any attention to the children as according to him they were trespassers. He set fire to the test crackers. One of the crackers which was supposed to ignite a series of crackers up in the sky at a height of 100 metres, did not burst in the sky. Instead, it fell to the ground and exploded, injuring one of the children. In a suit for compensation initiated by the parents of the injured child, how would you decide?

X', a fisher woman alighted from a tramcar. While the conductor was helping her to put the fish basket on her head, a motor cyclist 'Y' passed the tram and immediately afterwards negligently collided with Z's motor car. 'Y' was killed. 'X' did not see 'Y' or the accident which occurred fifteen yards away because her view was blocked by the tram. She, however, heard the collision and after 'Y's body has been removed, she approached the spot and saw the blood left on the road. In consequence, she had a nervous shock and gave birth to still-born child as she was then eight months' pregnant. If she sues the representatives of 'Y' for 'Y's negligence, then:

S1: Instantly the full load yanked Gordy towards the side of the bridge.
P: But the pull of the cable was too much.
Q: He could hardly feel the cable, slipping through his fingers, ripping off his gloves, and streaking over the railing like an escaping snake.
R: It smashed his hands hard against the top of the railing, causing a split - second feeling of fierce pain followed by numbness.
S: He held on to the cable; it had been hard work lifting it, and he did not want to have to start over again.
S6: Feeling a sharp burning sensation where the cable was speeding between his things, Gordy rose on tiptoe and as he did, the slithering coil of cable tightened around his left foot and yanked him over the railing.

The Proper sequence should be:

To constitute a matter of res judicata which of the following conditions must concur?
1. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit or issue must be the same matter which was directly and substantially in issue either actually (section 11, explanation III) or constructively (section 11, explanation IV) in the former suit
2. The former suit must have been a suit between the same parties under whom they or any of them claim. Explanation VI of Section 11 must be read with this condition
3. The parties as aforesaid must have litigated under the same title in the former suit
4. The court which decided the former suit must have been a court competent to try the subsequent suit of the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised. Explanation II of section 11 is to be read with condition
5. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must have been heard and finally decided by the court in the first suit. Explanation V of section 11 is to be read with this condition