AILET (All India Law Entrance Test) Legal-Aptitude: Questions 205 - 206 of 254

Access detailed explanations (illustrated with images and videos) to 254 questions. Access all new questions- tracking exam pattern and syllabus. View the complete topic-wise distribution of questions. Unlimited Access, Unlimited Time, on Unlimited Devices!

View Sample Explanation or View Features.

Rs. 200.00 -OR-

How to register? Already Subscribed?

Question 205

Appeared in Year: 2020

Question

MCQ▾

Which of the following statements is incorrect regarding SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendments Act?

Choices

Choice (4)Response

a.

No anticipatory bail can be granted to the accused under the Act.

b.

The offences under the Act are cognizable.

c.

The Police must file an FIR and arrest the accused on receiving the complaint.

d.

No arrest can be made without prior permission.

Question 206

Appeared in Year: 2018

Question

MCQ▾

Directions: Apply the legal principles to the facts given below arid 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) The claimant must prove that harm would not have occurred ‘but for’ the negligence of the defendant. The claimant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant՚s breach of duty caused the harm.

Factual Situation: Amar worked for an iron works, Luxmi Mills & Co. Ltd. Operating a remotely controlled crane, Amar galvanized items by dipping them into a large tank of molten metal. In order to protect its crane operators, whose controls were located just a few feet from the tank, Luxmi Mills erected a low wall around the tank and also provided a sheet of corrugated iron that crane operators placed between themselves and the wall. The operators were not facing the tank while opening the crane. Thus, they could not see the operation of the crane and therefore relied upon signals from another worker located farther from the tank. Many other galvanizers at the time situated their operators in enclosed, windowed spaces from which they could safely see and perform their work. Luxmi Mills eventually adopted that practice as well. One day, Amar was working on the crane. At one point, he either turned toward the tank or leaned out to see the worker giving him instructions, thereby placing his head outside the Iron sheet. A spray of molten metal burned Amar՚s lip. When it failed to heal and began to ulcerate, he consulted a doctor who diagnosed the wound as cancerous. Amar ultimately died from the spread of cancer after three years. His widow sued Luxmi Mills for negligence. Whether the employers would be liable for the full extent of the burn and cancer that had developed as a result?

Choices

Choice (4)Response

a.

The employers are liable for bums and not for the death which happened due to Amar՚s cancerous condition which could not have been known to the employers.

b.

The employers are liable for all of the consequences of their negligence; thus, liable for the employee՚s death. His predisposition to cancer did not matter, nor did the results of the injury. The question of liability was, whether the defendant could reasonably foresee the injury.

c.

The employers are not liable because Amar suffered injury due to his own negligence in stepping out of the protective shield.

d.

The employers are not liable because the duty of care towards Amar was not broached by them as they were using the same practices which were used by other companies at that time.

Developed by: