Question:
Certain legal principles and specific factual situations are provided in each of the following questions. Apply the principles to the given facts and select the most appropriate answer.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE :
1. Negligence is the absence of care on the part of one party which results in some damage to the other Party.
2. Generally, a person is under no duty to control another to prevent his doing damage to a third Party.
3. The foreseeability test basically asks whether the person causing the injury should have reasonably foreseen the general consequences that would result because of his or her conduct.
4. Statutory authority implies that an act is done by a person to fulfil his duty imposed by the State. Statutory authority is a valid defense under the law of torts.
FACTUAL SITUATION : Ten borstal trainees were working on an island in a harbor in the custody and under the control of three officers. During the night, seven of them escaped. It was claimed that at the time of the escape the officers had retired to bed. The seven got on board a yacht, moored off the island and set it in motion. They collided with another yacht, the property of X and damaged it. X sued the Home office for the damage. Decide whether on the facts pleaded in the statement of claim the Home Office, its servants or agents owed any duty of care to X capable of giving rise to a liability in damages with respect to the detention of persons undergoing sentences of borstal training or with respect to the manner in which such persons were treated, employed, disciplined, controlled or supervised whilst undergoing such sentences.
DECISION :
Certain legal principles and specific factual situations are provided in each of the following questions. Apply the principles to the given facts and select the most appropriate answer.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE :
1. Negligence is the absence of care on the part of one party which results in some damage to the other Party.
2. Generally, a person is under no duty to control another to prevent his doing damage to a third Party.
3. The foreseeability test basically asks whether the person causing the injury should have reasonably foreseen the general consequences that would result because of his or her conduct.
4. Statutory authority implies that an act is done by a person to fulfil his duty imposed by the State. Statutory authority is a valid defense under the law of torts.
FACTUAL SITUATION : Ten borstal trainees were working on an island in a harbor in the custody and under the control of three officers. During the night, seven of them escaped. It was claimed that at the time of the escape the officers had retired to bed. The seven got on board a yacht, moored off the island and set it in motion. They collided with another yacht, the property of X and damaged it. X sued the Home office for the damage. Decide whether on the facts pleaded in the statement of claim the Home Office, its servants or agents owed any duty of care to X capable of giving rise to a liability in damages with respect to the detention of persons undergoing sentences of borstal training or with respect to the manner in which such persons were treated, employed, disciplined, controlled or supervised whilst undergoing such sentences.
DECISION :
LEGAL PRINCIPLE :
1. Negligence is the absence of care on the part of one party which results in some damage to the other Party.
2. Generally, a person is under no duty to control another to prevent his doing damage to a third Party.
3. The foreseeability test basically asks whether the person causing the injury should have reasonably foreseen the general consequences that would result because of his or her conduct.
4. Statutory authority implies that an act is done by a person to fulfil his duty imposed by the State. Statutory authority is a valid defense under the law of torts.
FACTUAL SITUATION : Ten borstal trainees were working on an island in a harbor in the custody and under the control of three officers. During the night, seven of them escaped. It was claimed that at the time of the escape the officers had retired to bed. The seven got on board a yacht, moored off the island and set it in motion. They collided with another yacht, the property of X and damaged it. X sued the Home office for the damage. Decide whether on the facts pleaded in the statement of claim the Home Office, its servants or agents owed any duty of care to X capable of giving rise to a liability in damages with respect to the detention of persons undergoing sentences of borstal training or with respect to the manner in which such persons were treated, employed, disciplined, controlled or supervised whilst undergoing such sentences.
DECISION :
Updated On: Aug 5, 2024
- The Home office is not liable as they are performing statutory duty and has immunity from liability in negligence.
- The trainees are liable and not the Home Officers as the injury to X’s property could not be reasonably foreseen by the officers.
- The fact that the immediate damage to the property of X was caused by the acts of third persons, the trainees, prevent the existence of a duty on the part of the officers towards X.
- The taking by the trainees of the nearby yacht and the causing of damage to the other yacht which belonged to X ought to have been foreseen by the borstal officers as likely to occur if they failed to exercise proper control or supervision; in the particular circumstances, the officers prima facie owed a duty of care to X.
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
The correct option is (D): The taking by the trainees of the nearby yacht and the causing of damage to the other yacht which belonged to X ought to have been foreseen by the borstal officers as likely to occur if they failed to exercise proper control or supervision; in the particular circumstances, the officers prima facie owed a duty of care to X.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Top Questions on Legal Propositions and Reasonings
- Certain legal principles and specific factual situations are provided in each of the following questions. Apply the principles to the given facts and select the most appropriate answer.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE :
1. A deceit occurs when a misrepresentation is made with the express intention of defrauding a party, subsequently causing loss to that party.
2. “Misrepresentation” means and includes— the positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the information of the person making it, of that which is not true, though he believes it to be true; any breach of duty which, without an intent to deceive, gains an advantage of the person committing it, or any one claiming under him, by misleading another to his prejudice, or to the prejudice of any one claiming under him; causing, however innocently, a party to an agreement, to make a mistake as to the substance of the thing which is the subject of the agreement.
FACTUAL SITUATION : XY Company in its prospectus stated that the company was permitted to make engines that were powered by electricity, rather than by fuel. In reality, the company did not possess such a right as this had to be approved by the Government Board. Gaining the approval for such a claim from the Board was considered a formality in such circumstances and the claim was put forward in the prospectus with this information in mind. However, the claim of the company for this right was later refused by the Board. The individuals who had purchased a stake in the business, upon reliance on the statement, brought a claim for deceit against the defendant’s business. Decide.- AILET LLM - 2022
- Legal Studies
- Legal Propositions and Reasonings
- Certain legal principles and specific factual situations are provided in each of the following questions. Apply the principles to the given facts and select the most appropriate answer.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE :
1. Private nuisance is a continuous, unlawful and indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over or in connection with it.
2. Generally, nuisances cannot be justified on the ground of necessity, pecuniary interest, convenience, or economic advantage to a defendant.
3. A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would be likely to injure his neighbor.
4. In cases of nuisance, the court may grant an injunction restricting the nuisance from occurring in the future when the loss could not adequately compensated.
FACTUAL SITUATION : Tina purchased a house in an estate which was adjacent to a functioning, in use, cricket field. The members of Super Eleven Cricket Club used to play Cricket in that field for over 70 years. After Tina moved into the property, cricket balls began to fly over the field’s protective barrier and into the Tina’s property. Tina complained, which caused Super Eleven Cricket Club to erect a chain link fence. This improved matters as less balls were now flying onto the Tina’s property but it did not fully solve the issue as some still got through. The club offered Tina to pay for any damage done or injuries received as a result of the balls landing onto her land, including fixing any broken windows and similar. Tina, however, refused all of the club’s offers and filed a case against the members of the Club alleging nuisance and negligence and requested court to grant an injunction to prevent the club from playing cricket on their ground. Tina argued that even though the club offered to make good any damage and that there had been no injuries, she was not able to use her garden when matches were being played for fear of being struck by a cricket ball. Decide.- AILET LLM - 2022
- Legal Studies
- Legal Propositions and Reasonings
- Certain legal principles and specific factual situations are provided in each of the following questions. Apply the principles to the given facts and select the most appropriate answer.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE : In relation to the law of contracts, in instances where both parties to an agreement are under a mistake about a matter of fact essential to the agreement, the agreement is void.
FACTUAL SITUATION : Lakshman agrees to sell to Manu a consignment of herbal products which was supposed to be on a ship on its way from Madagascar to Mumbai. However, two days before the agreement was reached, the ship carrying the products met with an accident and all the goods were lost. Lakshman’s agent had informed Lakshman about this on the day the accident happened. Is the agreement void because of a mistake as to a matter of fact ?- AILET LLM - 2022
- Legal Studies
- Legal Propositions and Reasonings
- Certain legal principles and specific factual situations are provided in each of the following questions. Apply the principles to the given facts and select the most appropriate answer.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE :
1. According to rule of strict liability, any person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage, irrespective of fault, which is the natural consequence of its escape in respect of the non-natural use of land.
2. A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would be likely to injure his neighbor.
FACTUAL SITUATION : PN was the owner of a gas pipe which passed under the surface of an old railway between Ramnagar and Kotpur. XY was the local council which was responsible for a water pipe which supplied water to a block of flats in the nearby Shining Apartment Complex. A leak developed which was undetected for some time. The water collected at an embankment which housed PN’s high pressure gas main. The water caused the embankment to collapse and left the gas main exposed and unsupported. This was a serious and immediate risk and PN took action to avoid the potential danger. They then sought to recover the cost of the remedial works. PN argued that the XY Council was liable for negligence under strict liability.- AILET LLM - 2022
- Legal Studies
- Legal Propositions and Reasonings
- Certain legal principles and specific factual situations are provided in each of the following questions. Apply the principles to the given facts and select the most appropriate answer.
LEGAL PRINCIPLE : Generally, the owner of the property has a duty to maintain his property so as to make it reasonably safe for use. However, the occupier also owes a duty to take such care as is reasonable to see that the visitor is reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be therein.
FACTUAL SITUATION : Sheila is a painter. She went to her friend Ruchi’s house for meeting her. Sheila requested to use the bathroom and injured her right hand on a broken water faucet handle. Sheila filed a personal injury action for hand injuries suffered alleging that Ruchi failed to warn her that her bathroom fixtures were cracked and dangerous. Ruchi says she had complained to the landlord about the broken handle so the landlord is liable. Decide whether the Sheila’s injury the proximate cause of Ruchi’s negligence ?- AILET LLM - 2022
- Legal Studies
- Legal Propositions and Reasonings
View More Questions
Questions Asked in AILET LLM exam
- As per the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, which of the following statement is false?
- AILET LLM - 2025
- Family Laws
- In relation to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 match the following and identify correct answer:Select the correct option:
(A) Conditions for a Hindu Marriage (i) Section 13 (B) Registration of Hindu Marriage (ii) Section 10 (C) Judicial Separation (iii) Section 5 (D) Divorce (iv) Section 8 - AILET LLM - 2025
- Family Laws
- Match the followingSelect the correct option
I. Arbitration of excepted matters 1. A. Ayyasamy v. A. Paramasivam, (2016) 10 SCC 386 II. Conditional Arbitration Clauses 2. In re - Interplay between Arb Agreements and Stamp Act 2023 INSC 1066 III. Separability of Arbitration Agreement - Kompetenz Kompetenz 3. Vulcan Insurance Co Ltd v. Maharaj Singh and Anr (1976) 1 SCC 943 IV. Arbitrability of fraud 4. Mitra Guha Builders (India) Co v. ONGC (2020) 3 SCC 222 - AILET LLM - 2025
- Arbitration Law
- Match the followingSelect the correct option:
I. Uti Possidetis 1. Principle in customary international law providing that where there has been a fundamental change of circumstances since an agreement was concluded, a party to that agreement may withdraw from or terminate it. II. Pacta Sunt Servanda 2. Two or more states equally exercise sovereignty with respect to a territory and its inhabitants. III. Condominium 3. Doctrine that territory remains with the possessor state at the end of war or occupation unless otherwise determined by a treaty or an agreement. IV. Rebus Sic Stantibus 4. Proposition that treaties are binding upon the parties to them and must be performed in good faith. - AILET LLM - 2025
- Public International Law
- Pick the correct statement:
- AILET LLM - 2025
- Company Law
View More Questions