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. 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.
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.
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.
Updated On: Aug 5, 2024
- The Council is liable under strict liability rule as the damage is not remote as it was possible for the Council to reasonably foresee a leakage which would eventually lead to collapse of the gas main.
- The escape of water as a result of leak is sufficient to make the Council liable.
- The Council is not liable as PN should have been careful in detecting the leak earlier. They cannot shift the blame on the Council.
- The Council is not liable under rule of strict liability for the damage as the Council’s use was neither a non-natural nor dangerous use of the land.
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
The correct option is (D): The Council is not liable under rule of strict liability for the damage as the Council’s use was neither a non-natural nor dangerous use of the land.
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. Vicarious liability is when employers are held liable for the torts of their employees that are committed during the course of employment.
2. A servant is a person subject to the command of his master as to the manner in which he shall do his work. The question of whether a person is an employee depends upon the degree of control which the ‘employer’ exercises over the worker.
FACTUAL SITUATION: Raja is a travel agent and possessed certain houses, which had an internal communication throughout, and which were used for the purpose of his business. Ramesh looked after the houses, and lived in them for this purpose, but he was also a clerk in Raja’s pay at a set annual salary. He lived in the houses with his wife, a child, and a servant. The case concerned the payment of the inhabited house duty. There was a statutory exemption for premises which were occupied by a “servant” or person occupying the premises “for protection thereof ”. Raja was claiming the exemption form the liability by claiming that Ramesh was the servant. Decide whether Ramesh was a servant or an independent contractor ?- 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 : Whoever gives a gratification to any person with the object of inducing him or any other person to exercise any electoral right or of rewarding any person for having exercised any such right commits the offence of bribery.
FACTUAL SITUATION : Mr. Verma, a candidate for elections, decided to visit rural households as part of an election campaign. He visited a household where an elderly man Madhava required an immediate but extremely expensive life-saving medical procedure. Mr. Verma gave money to the family of Madhava for the operation. While leaving, he drew the family’s attention towards his party’s symbol in light of the upcoming elections. Has Mr. Verma committed the offence of bribery?- 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