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

Consider the following statements:<br>1. A Circus Company keeps wild animals and trains them. One of them escapes and causes injury to a spectator. Company is not liable.<br>2. A person who brings and keeps any dangerous thing, keeps it at his risk, if it escapes and causes damages he is liable. Of these statements

Correct Answer: 1 is false but 2 is true

Which one of the following is the ratio decidendi of the case of Rylands v. Fletcher?
1. A person is liable if he brings on his land some dangerous thing
2. The liability arises not because there was any fault on the person but because he kept some dangerous thing on his land
3. Even if the defendant was not negligent in causing the harm, he could still be made liable under the rule
4. A person, who for his own purposes brings on his lands and keeps there anything which is likely to do mischief if it escapes, is prima facie answerable for the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Due to the technical snag in the signal system two trains start approaching each other on the same track from two different stations, 240 km away each other. When the train starts a bird also starts moving to and fro between the two trains at 60 kmph touching each train each time. The bird initially sitting on the top of the engine of one of the trains and it moves so till these trains collide. If these trains collide one and half hour after start, then how many kilometers bird travels till the time of collision of trains?

Consider the following statements:
For making occupier or owner of a land liable on the basis of strict liability rule certain essential factors are:
1. Keeping of a dangerous thing on his land.
2. non-natural use of land.
3. use of thing for common benefit.
4. escape of thing from his control.
Which of the statements given above are correct?

In each of the following question below are given some statements followed by some conclusions. Taking the given statements to be true even if they seem to be at variance from commonly known facts, read all the conclusions and then decide which of the given conclusion logically follows the given statements. Statements: I. All insects are dangerous. II. All machines are dangerous. Conclusions: I. All dangerous are insects. II. All dangerous are machines. III. Some machines are insects.

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?

Consider the following statements:
In case of joint publication of defamatory statement:
1. A corporation is liable for the malice of its agent.
2. The proprietor of a newspaper is liable for the malice of the editor.
3. A lawyer is liable for the malice in the notice issued under the instructions of his client.
4. The employer is liable for the malice of a typist who types a defamatory letter as dictated by his employer.
Which of the statements given above are correct?

Consider the following statements:
A person abets the doing of a thing, who
1. Instigates any person to do that thing.
2. Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Consider the following set of legal propositions:
1. A person can claim damages for all wrongs he has suffered.
2. A person can claim damages for wrongs only if they are caused intentionally.
3. A person can claim damages for a wrong if it is caused by infringement of this legal right.
4. A person can claim damage even if he has suffered no loss.
Of the above propositions:

Direction : Two statements I and II are given. These statement may be either independent causes or may be effects of independent causes or a common cause. One of these statements may be the effect of the other statements. Read both the statements and decide which of the following answer choice correctly depicts the relationship between these two statements. Mark answer :

I. The performance of Indian sports persons in the recently held Olympics could not reach the level of expectation the country had on them.
II. The performance of Indian sports person in the last Asian games was far better than any previous games.

In which case following rule was laid: "We think that the true of law is that the person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of Its escape. He can excuse himself by showing that the escape was owing to the plaintiff's default; or perhaps that the escape was the consequence of vis major, or the act of God; but as nothing of this sort exists here, it is unnecessary to inquire what excuse would be sufficient".