AILET (All India Law Entrance Test) 2019 MCQs Questions with Solutions and Explanations at Doorsteptutor. Com Part 11

Glide to success with Doorsteptutor material for AILET : get questions, notes, tests, video lectures and more- for all subjects of AILET.

Question 74

Directions: Apply the legal principles lo the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.

Legal Principles:

(1) The Tort of Negligence is a legal wrong that is suffered by someone at the hands of another who fails to take proper care to avoid what a reasonable person would regard as a foreseeable risk.

(2) The test of liability requires that the harm must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant՚s conduct, a relationship of proximity must exist and it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.

(3) Volenti non-fit injuria is defence to action in negligence.

Facts: In a sad incident, 95 fans of a Football club died in a stampede in the Nehru Stadium. The court has decided that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the Police in permitting too many supporters to crowd in one part of the stadium. Now, a suit is filed by Harman and several other people against the Commissioner of State Police. Harman and the other claimants had relatives who were caught up in the Nehru Stadium disaster. The disaster was broadcast on live television, where several claimants alleged, they had witnessed friends and relatives die. Others were present in the stadium o had heard about the events in other ways. All claimed damages for the psychiatric harm they suffered as a result. Determine whether, for the purposes of establishing liability in negligence, those who suffer purely psychiatric harm from witnessing an event at which they are not physically present are sufficiently proximate for a duty to be owed, and thus can be said to be reasonably within the contemplation of the tortfeasor?

A. Police is liable for all of the consequences of their negligence because they could reasonable foresee the injury. The liability towards victims who are not physically present is also there in all circumstances.

B. Police is not liable because the duty of care towards Harman and others will be breached if they were present at the event and the harm caused was being foreseeable. The liability towards victims who are not physically present is only in certain exceptional circumstances.

C. Police is not liable because the incident was an accident and supporters were there by their own free will.

D. Police is liable for only for the death of 95 fans bums and not for the psychiatric harm to relatives of deceased fans which happened due to their own delicate mental condition.

Question 75

Facts: X purchased a disused cinema with the intention of turning it Into a Multiplex. Six weeks after, X entered the building for the first time, it was set on fire by intruders and destroyed. As a result, the adjacent buildings were also affected and damaged. The cinema building was a target to vandals and children who often played there, but X had had no knowledge of previous attempts to start fire at the cinema buildings. The owners of the adjacent buildings brought an action for negligence against X on grounds that X failed to take reasonable care for the safety of the buildings by not keeping the cinema locked, making regular Inspections and employing a caretaker.

Decide whether the occupier of property owes a duty of care to the adjoining occupiers In respect of acts of trespass on his property resulting in damage to the adjoining properties?

A. An occupier of a property owes a duty of care to the adjoining occupiers in respect of acts of trespass on his properly resulting in damage to the adjoining properties under all circumstances.

B. X was not aware of previous attempts of vandals to start fire and as such, the building did not present an obvious fire risk, so X was not under any duty to anticipate the possibility of tire and take measures to prevent the entry of vandals. So, no duty of care existed towards the adjoining properties in this case.

C. Though X were not aware of previous attempts of vandals to start fire and as such and the building did not present an obvious fire risk but he failed to take reasonable care, so X is liable.

D. X is not liable as the adjoining occupiers are also negligent by not being careful in safeguarding their properties against fire.

Question 76

Facts: A team of scientists imported a virus for the purpose of research. They carried out research on their premises into foot and mouth disease in cattle, and they were apparently responsible for the escape of some virus. As a result, there was an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the area, and the Minister of Agriculture ordered two markets to be closed. This caused the some of the traders, who were two firms of auctioneers, to suffer a loss of profits on a total of six market days, for which they sought to recover.

Decide whether the scientists owed a duty of care towards the traders?

A. An ability to foresee indirect or economic loss to another person as the result of a defendants conduct automatically impose on the defendant a duty to take care to avoid that loss.

B. The loss to the traders was pecuniary. They suffered no physical harm to themselves or to any of their property. An ability to foresee indirect or economic loss to another person as the result of a defendant՚s conduct did not automatically impose on the defendant a duty to take care to avoid that loss.

C. It is not proved that there was negligence on the part of the scientists which resulted in an escape of the virus so they are not liable.

D. Though the scientists are negligent in handling the virus but they are not liable as the leakage of virus was by accident.

Question 77

Legal Principles:

(1) Private nuisance is a continuous, unlawful and indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over or in connection with it.

(2) A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would be likely to injure his neighbour.

(3) The foreseeability of the type of damage is a pre-requisite of liability in actions of nuisance.

Facts: Bharat Sugar Ltd. operated a sugar refinery on the bank of the river Ravi. They had a jetty from which raw sugar would be offloaded from barges and refined sugar would be taken. The sugar would be taken by larger vessels and then transferred to smaller barges to enable them to get through the shallow waters. As part of development Bharat Sugar Ltd. wished to construct a new jetty and dredge the water to accommodate the larger vessels. At the same time the State was constructing new ferry terminals. The design of the ferry terminals was such that that it caused siltation of the channels. After using the channels for a short while, Bharat Sugars՚ larger vessels were no longer able to use them. Further dredging at the cost of 7.50,000 was required to make the channel and jetties usable by the vessels. Bharat Sugar Ltd. brought an action in nuisance to recover the cost of the extra dredging. Is the State liable?

A. The loss caused by the construction of new ferry terminals could not amount to a private nuisance at law since they did not possess any private rights which enabled them to insist on any particular depth of water.

B. The loss caused by the construction of new ferry terminals amount to a private nuisance at law since they did possess right to use the water at a particular depth.

C. No, it cannot constitute private nuisance but the claimants can claim damages for loss suffered by them.

D. Yes, the States conduct was unreasonable in building the new terminals without thinking of all the consequences it will have on the rights of other parties.

Question 78

Legal principle: The tort of negligent misstatement is defined as an inaccurate statement made honestly but carelessly usually in the form of advice given by a party with special skill/knowledge to a party that doesn՚t possess this skill or knowledge.

Facts: X and Y Co. were advertising agents placing contracts on behalf of a client on credit terms. X and Y Co. would be personally liable should the client default. To protect themselves, the X and Y asked their bankers to obtain a credit reference from K and L, the client՚s bankers. The reference (given both orally and then in writing) was given gratis and was favourable, but also contained an exclusion clause to the effect that the information was given ‘without responsibility on the part of this Bank or its officials’ . X and Y relied upon this reference and subsequently suffered financial loss when the client went into liquidation. X and Y sued K and L Co. for negligence, claiming that the information was given negligently and was misleading. K and L argued there was no duty of care owed regarding the statements. Decide.

A. The K and L՚s disclaimer was not valid to protect them from liability and X and Y՚s claim will not fail.

B. The X and V has a duty to obtain the necessary information themselves without relying upon the other party.

C. It was reasonable for K and L to have known that the information that they had given would likely have been relied upon for entering into a contract of some sort. That would give rise to a special relationship of trust, in which K and L would have to take sufficient care in giving advice to avoid negligence liability. However, on the facts, the disclaimer is sufficient to discharge any duty created by K and L՚s actions.

D. It was reasonable for K and L to have known that the information that they had given would likely have been retied upon for entering into a contract of some sort. That would give rise to a special relationship of trust, in which K and L would have to take sufficient care in giving advice to avoid liability. Hence, liable for negligent misstatement.

Developed by: