AILET (All India Law Entrance Test) 2020 MCQs Questions with Solutions and Explanations at Doorsteptutor. Com Part 10

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

Legal Aptitude

Direction: Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.

Legal Principles:

(1) Negligence is a legal wrong that is suffered by someone at the hands of another who has a duty to take care but 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) The claimant must prove that harm would not have occurred ‘but for’ the negligence of the defendant.

(4) Duty of care is a legal obligation which is imposed on an individual requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others.

(5) Conversations between a doctor and patient are generally confidential but there are few exceptions.

Question 71

A company called KLM, manufacturers of electrical equipment, was the target of a takeover by ABS Industries. KLM was not doing well. In March 2019, KLM had issued a profit warning, which had halved its share price. In May 2019, KLM՚s directors made a preliminary announcement in its annual profits for the year up to March. This confirmed that the position was bad. The share price fell again. At this point, ABS had begun buying up shares in large numbers. In June 2019, the annual accounts, which were done with the help of the accountant Dinesh, were issued to the shareholders, which now included ABS. ABS reached a shareholding of 29.9 % of the company, at which point it made a general offer for the remaining shares, as the City Code՚s rules on takeovers required. But once it had control, ABS found that KLM՚s accounts were in an even worse state than had been revealed by the directors or the auditors. It sued Dinesh for negligence in preparing the accounts and sought to recover its losses. This was the difference in value between the company as it had and what it would have had if the accounts had been accurate. Which of the following answers in incorrect?

A. No duty of care had arisen in relation to existing or potential shareholders. The only duty of care the auditor՚s owed was to the governance of the firm.

B. Dinesh is not liable as it is a case of pure economic loss in the absence of contractual agreements between parties.

C. There are circumstances where an auditor will owe a duty of care in respect of reports produced. These are conditional that at the time the report is prepared it is known by the auditors that the results are for a specific class and for a specific purpose.

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

Question 72

In 2005, the local council of Delhi approved building plans for the erection of a block of apartments. The approved plans showed the base wall and concrete foundations of the block to be three feet or deeper to the approval of local authority. The notice of approval said that the bylaws of the council required that notice should be given to the council both at the commencement of the work and when the foundations were ready to be covered by the rest of the building work. The council had the power to inspect the foundations and

require any corrections necessary to bring the work into conformity with the bylaws, but was not under an obligation to do so.

The block of apartments was finished in 2006. The builder (who was also the owner) granted 99-year leases for the apartments, the last conveyance taking place in 2010. In 2017 structural movements occurred resulting in failure of the building comprising cracks in the wall, sloping of the floors and other defects. In 2019, the plaintiffs who were lessees of the apartments filed cases for negligence against the builder and the council.

The plaintiffs claimed that the damage was a consequence of the block having been built on inadequate foundations, there being a depth of two feet six inches only as against the three feet or deeper shown on the plans and required under the bylaws. The plaintiffs claimed damages in negligence against the council for approving the foundations and/or in failing to inspect the foundations. Decide whether the council owed a duty of care to the claimants in respect of the incorrect depth of the foundations laid by the third-party builder?

A. The Council is not liable for damages to the plaintiff as failing to inspect would not render the council liable unless it was considered that it had failed to properly exercise its discretion to inspect and that they had failed to ensure proper compliance with building regulations.

B. The Council is liable for negligence as they failed to inspect the foundation.

C. There is no negligence in building the apartments as there is minor difference between a foundation which is three feet deep and a foundation which is two feet six inches deep.

D. The tenets has a duty to inspect the property properly before entering into such a long lease agreement.

Question 73

Soman was the student of PRQ University. He met Pamela in a youth festival and fell in love with her. However, Pamela was not interested in having any serious relationship with Soman. Due to this, Soman went into emotional crisis and started consulting a psychologist in the PRQ Memorial Hospital. In October 2018, Soman murdered Pamela. Pamela՚s parents contended that only a short time prior, Soman had expressed his intention to murder their daughter to his therapist, Dr. Surana, a psychologist employed by the University. They further alleged that Dr. Surana had warned campus police of Soman՚s intentions, and that the police had briefly detained him, but then released him. Pamela՚s parents filed a case of negligence against the Police Department and the University officials on two grounds: the failure to confine Soman, in spite of his expressed intentions to kill Pamela, and failure to warn Pamela or her parents. Defendants maintained that they owed no duty of care to the victim, and were immune from suit. Which of the following is incorrect?

A. The police did not have the requisite proximity or special relationship with family of Pamela, sufficient to impose a duty to warn her of Soman՚s intention.

B. The public policy favouring protection of the confidential character of patient psychotherapist communications must yield to the extent to which disclosure is essential to avert danger to others. The protective privilege ends where the public peril begins.

C. The therapists and Regents of University are liable for breach of duty to exercise reasonable care.

D. Soman only once expressed the desire to kill Pamela. Such kinds of feelings are normal in any mentally ill patient. Moreover, information received during a counselling session is confidential in nature and so therapists cannot reveal it to the parents of Pamela.

Question 74

R, T and U were watchmen in Skypark Society. They were on night shift and began vomiting after drinking tea. They went to the SEM Hospital and complained to the nurse about it. The nurse thought they were vomiting because of alcohol they had been drinking earlier in the evening. However, the nurse reported it to the medical officer who refused to examine them and said that they needed to go home and contact their own doctors. They returned to their workplace, where U՚s condition deteriorated. U died of arsenic poisoning five hours later on way to hospital.

U՚s wife brought a claim of negligence against the Hospital administration. She argued that the hospital was negligent in not identifying that U had been poisoned, and the doctor should therefore have seen to him when they first approached the hospital. The hospital denied they were negligent, and in any event said they did not cause his death. Decide.

A. The hospital is not liable for negligence because even if the patient was examined five hours earlier to the death he would have died anyways. The test of causation was not satisfied. The Hospital did not cause U՚s death but for the defendant՚s negligence, U would have died anyways.

B. It was highly possible that the doctor would have identified U՚s condition as arsenical poisoning, and therefore U would have received the treatment he needed to survive.

C. Where there are a number of possible causes, the claimant must still prove the defendant՚s breach of duty caused the harm or was a material contribution.

D. Both A & C

Developed by: