Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4

LEGAL REASONING - 7

1. Principle: The principal is liable for all the negligent acts of the agent done in the
course of employment in performance of his duties, as if he himself had done
them.
Facts: Mrs. Lloyd, who owned two cottages but was not satisfied with the
income there from, approached the office of Grace, Smith and Co., a firm of
solicitors, to consult them about the matter of her property. The managing clerk
of the company attended her and advised her to sell the two cottages and invest
the money in a better way. She was asked to sign two documents, which were
supposed to be sale deeds. In fact, the documents got signed were gift deeds in
the name of the managing clerk himself. He then disposed of the property and
misappropriated the proceeds. He had acted solely for his personal benefit and
without the knowledge of his principal. Mrs. Lloyd brought a suit against the firm.
Decide.
A. She can claim damages as there was a fiduciary relationship between the two
and there was a breach of the same.
B. She will not be able to claim damages from the firm as what the clerk did falls
completely out of the course of his employment.
C. She will not be able to claim damages as she should have been more careful
while signing the deeds.
D. She will be able to claim damages from the firm as even though the clerk acted
for his own benefit, he was acting in the course of his ostensible or apparent
authority.
2. Principle: The principal is liable for all the negligent acts of the agent done in the
course of employment in performance of his duties, as if he himself had done
them.
Facts: Kailash, one day while his brother and the owner of the motorcycle, Shiv,
was outside the country, took it without his knowledge or permission and met
with an accident and injured Trilok. A suit was brought against Shiv for damages.
Decide.
A. Shiv is not liable to pay the damages as his younger brother was not his agent.
B. Shiv is liable to pay the damages as his younger brother is deemed as his agent.
C. Kailash alone is liable.
D. Both A and C.
3. Principle: The master/principal is liable for all the negligent acts of the
servant/agent done in the course of employment in performance of his duties, as
if he himself had done them.
Facts: Avinisha runs 2000 stories, a lending library and has to make a lot of
book deliveries every day. As the library started working well, the number of book
deliveries to be made got out of her hand. So she employed Spring to her in
running the library and deliver the books. One day, Spring had to go to his son’s
college to pay the semester fees and he requested Avinisha to lend him her Royal
Enfield. She obliged and agreed to lend him her bike. While Spring was returning
from his son’s college, he had an accident near a cramped plaza market as a result
of which 4 pedestrians were injured. Avinisha and Spring are sued.
A. Both Avinisha and Spring are liable.
B. Only Spring is liable.
C. Avinisha alone is liable as she was the employer of Spring and is therefore
vicariously liable for Spring’s fault.
D. None of these.
4. Principle: The tort of Negligence is said to have been committed when there was
a duty of care and there was a breach of this duty as a result of which damages
were caused.
Facts: Ching Chang, a minor boy, came in contact with an overhead electric wire
which had sagged to 3 feet above the ground, got electrocuted thereby and
received burn injuries. As per the policies and rules governing the operation of
the State Electricity Board, the overhead wires had to be at least 15 feet above the
ground. The Assam State Electricity Board is sued. Can damages be claimed from
them?
A. No, as this was not due to breach of duty on the part of the board, but rather a
case of accident.
B. Yes, damages can be claimed.
C. Yes, the damages can be claimed as there was a duty of care imposed on the
board and there was a breach of the same.
D. None of these.
Principles:
I. The tort of Negligence is said to have been committed when there was a duty of
care and there was a breach of this duty as a result of which damages were
caused.
II. A master/principal is liable for the acts of his servant/agent done in the course
of his employment. The servant is directly liable and the master is held to be
vicariously liable. This is the concept of vicarious liability.
Facts: Bhagwat Swarup booked replacement of a cooking gas cylinder with
Mount Abu Gas Co., who had the gas agency in Simla. The delivery man from
the Gas company took a cylinder into Swarup’s house. The cap of the cylinder
being defective, he tried to open it by knocking at the same with an axe. This
resulted in damage to the cylinder and leaking of gas therefrom. Some fire was
already burning in the kitchen and the leaked gas also caught fire. As a
consequence of the fire, Swarup’ daughter died, some other family members
received severe burn injuries, and some property inside the house was also
destroyed by fire.
5. Using principle 1, decide whether the tort of negligence has been committed.
A. Yes, as the servant should have known the consequences of the gas cylinder
exploding, and therefore the standard of duty of care was higher.
B. No, because the servant was carrying on his duty and the explosion was a mere
accident.
C. No, as it was not reasonably foreseeable for the servant to know that death
might be caused.
D. Yes, as the cap of the cylinder should not have been opened by an axe.
6. Using Principles 1 and 2, decide who the liability should rest upon, if any.
A. The servant should be held liable as it was his act that resulted in the explosion
and the subsequent death and injuries.
B. The Gas Company should be held liable.
C. Both the servant and the Gas Company are liable.
D. No one is liable as it was an accident as was reasonable unforeseeable.
Principles:
I. Battery is the intentional use of unlawful force against a person.
II. The tort of assault occurs when the defendant does something that causes an
immediate reasonable apprehension of battery in the mind of the plaintiff.
Facts: Ram was standing on the terrace of his house when he saw Krishna
walking down the road. Both had fierce competition between them and were
enemies. After seeing Krishna, Ram went inside and fetched an empty bucket,
put it over the railing of his terrace and tilted it a bit towards the road. At this
moment, Krishna saw Ram, and feared he was about to throw water on him.
7. Is Ram liable to Krishna?
A. Yes, Ram is liable for assault as his act of putting the bucket and tilting it from
above raised fear in Krishna.
B. No, Ram is not liable as the bucket was empty and he possibly couldn’t have
done any harm to Krishna.
C. No, as even if there was water in the bucket, throwing it on someone is not
battery, and therefore, there lied no reasonable fear for any prospective act of
battery.
D. None of these.

8. Ram brings a bucket of water and throws the water down on the road to drench
Krishna . Is Ram liable for battery?
A. No, as throwing water on a person can’t cause any physical injury to him.
B. No, as Krishna couldn’t have fear because Ram threw water on him.
C. Yes, Ram is liable for battery.
D. None of these.

9. When can battery be said to have been committed, if at all, Ram’s act constitutes
battery?
A. Ram did not commit battery.
B. Battery was committed as soon as he put the bucket of water on his railing to
throw in on Krishna.
C. Battery was committed when he actually tilted the bucket.
D. Battery was committed as soon as the water in the bucket fell on Krishna.
10. Principle: Whoever causes unreasonable interference to the right of another
over his property and space is causing nuisance.
Facts: Karan resides in a house next to a Roman Catholic Chapel of which
Sukanya is the priest. The chapel bell is rung at all hours of the day and night.
Karan sues Sukanya for nuisance. Decide
A. Karan can’t claim damages from Sukanya as the ringing of church bells is not
unreasonable.
B. This is not nuisance as Karan should not have had a house near the church,
keeping in mind the fact that bells will be pealing there.
C. Karan can claim damages as pealing of church bells has caused inconvenience
by its frequent ringing.
D. None of these.