AILET Legal-Aptitude: Questions 54 - 55 of 152
Get 1 year subscription: Access detailed explanations (illustrated with images and videos) to 152 questions. Access all new questions we will add tracking exam-pattern and syllabus changes. View Sample Explanation or View Features.
Rs. 150.00 or
Question number: 54
Appeared in Year: 2014
LEGAL PRINCIPLES: An act done, even if without the consent of a person is not an offence, provided the offender did not intend to cause death, and the act was done for the person’s benefit, in good faith.
Mere pecuniary benefit is not a ‘thing done for a person’s benefit’.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A is in a house which is on fire, with Z, a child. People below hold out a blanket. A drops the child from the house top, knowing it to be likely that the fall may kill the child but intending to save him from the fire. Unfortunately, the child is killed. Is A guilty?
Yes, A had knowledge of his dangerous act. His act was not justified.
Yes, A should have tried a less dangerous alternative.
No, his act was done in good faith to save the child.
No, he had the best of intentions and this was the only alternative.
Question number: 55
Appeared in Year: 2013
LEGAL PRINCIPLES: 1) Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do or doing something which a prudent or reasonable man would not do. 2) Defendant’s duty of care depends on the reasonable foreseeability of injury which may be caused to the plaintiff on breach of duty.
FACTUAL SITUATION: The defendant’s employees of the Municipal Corporation opened a manhole in the street and in the evening left the manhole open and covered it by a canvass shelter, unattended and surrounded by warning lamps. The plaintiff, an eight years old boy, took one of the lamps into the shelter and was playing with it there, when he stumbled over it and fell into the manhole. A violent explosion followed and the plaintiff suffered burn injuries. The defendants are
Liable because they acted unreasonably
Liable because they should have completed the work before they left
Not liable because they acted reasonably
Not liable because the injury to plaintiff is not foreseeable