Tort (AILET Legal-Aptitude): Questions 13 - 14 of 29

Get 1 year subscription: Access detailed explanations (illustrated with images and videos) to 151 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: 13

» Tort

Appeared in Year: 2015

MCQ▾

Question

LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Everybody is under a legal obligation to take reasonable care to avoid act or omission which he can foresee would injure his neighbor, the neighbor for this purpose is any person whom he should have in his mind as likely to be affected by his act.

FACTUAL SITUATION: Krish, while driving a car at a high speed in a crowded road, knocked down a cyclist. The cyclist died on the spot with a lot of blood spilling around, Lekha, a pregnant woman passing by, suffered from a nervous shock, leading to abortion. Lekha filed a suit against Krishnan claiming damages.

Choices

Choice (4) Response

a.

Krish will be liable to Lekha because he failed to drive carefully.

b.

Krish will not be liable, because he could not have foreseen Lekha suffering from nervous shock as a result of his act.

c.

Krish will be liable, because he owed a duty of reasonable care to everybody on the road including Lekha.

d.

None of the above

Question number: 14

» Tort

Appeared in Year: 2013

MCQ▾

Question

LEGAL PRINCIPLES: 1) Joint tort-feasters means joint wrong doers. People can be joint tort-feasors in case of common action, in fact or in law. 2) Joint tort-feasers are jointly and severally liable.

FACTUAL SITUATION: Two dogs belonging to two different owner acting in concert attacked a flock of sheep and injured several sheeps. In an action for damages brought against the owners of the dogs, if one of them puts a defense claiming that he was liable for one half only of the damage, then which one of the following statements is legally sustainable in the above case?

Choices

Choice (4) Response

a.

Neither of the owners is liable for damages done by his dog

b.

Each owner was responsible for one half of the damage

c.

The owners themselves are not joint tort-feasers

d.

Question does not provide sufficient data or is vague

Sign In