Tort (AILET Legal-Aptitude): Questions 9 - 10 of 29
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: 9
Appeared in Year: 2014
1. Medical professionals are not immune from liability in tort on ground of negligence.
2. Services rendered to a patient by a doctor (except when given free of charge by way of consultation, diagnosis and treatment) fall in the definition of “service under the Consumer Protection Act. In case of negligence, the doctors are liable in tort as well as under the Consumer Protection Act.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A was the only child of his parents. Once he had high fever and his parents called a doctor at home. This doctor used to work at a respectable hospital in Delhi. The doctor administered certain medicines and asked the nurse to stay with him for the night and administer to him a chloroquine injection. This injection was generally not suitable for young children. The nurse, without prior test, followed instructions of the doctor and gave the injection. As a result of an allergic reaction, the child died. The parents sued the nurse and the doctor.
This is not a service; hence not liable.
Doctor was not liable as he came to their home to give personal treatment and was not in the Hospital
Doctor was rendering a “service”; hence liable to pay compensation.
Only the nurse is liable.
Question number: 10
Appeared in Year: 2012
PRINCIPLE: A man would be responsible for all direct consequences of his act, in so far as he could reasonably foresee them as arising from his act.
FACTS: A ship carrying petroleum was moving on the high sea. On a short halt in a port, the master of the ship engaged some stevedores to load some metallic planks onto the ship. While loading the planks, a plank slipped from the hands of stevedore and the spark, emitted thereby, ignited petroleum vapor and caused considerable damage to the goods. The owner of the goods filed a suit against the master of the ship.
The master of the ship is liable, because he is responsible for the acts of stevedore since he engaged them.
The master of the ship is not liable, because he was not responsible for the act of stevedore.
The master is liable, because he should have foreseen the consequences of the stevedore’s act.
|d.||All of the above|