| GyanCentral - The hub for engineering and law students - IIT-JEE, AIEEE, BITSAT, CLAT, AILET - 2012: Legal reasoning questions on: Act of God and Private Defence Dec 5th 2012, 18:55 | GyanCentral - The hub for engineering and law students - IIT-JEE, AIEEE, BITSAT, CLAT, AILET - 2012 | | The source for all engineering and legal education news in India | | | Legal reasoning questions on: Act of God and Private Defence Dec 5th 2012, 18:43 Act of God is a defence for the defendant to escape the liability. Two important essentials are needed for this Defence: 1)There must be working of Natural forces; 2)The occurrence must be extraordinary and not one which could be anticipated and reasonably guarded against. Will created some artificial lakes on his land by damming some natural streams. An extraordinary heavy rainfall took place. The water flooded the bridges owned by Smith. a)Act of God, No liability. b)No liability because Smith could have foreseen this flooding. Yet he took the risk of building the bridges c)Will did not have good storage facilities. Hence his liability arises. d)None of the above. The wall of a building collapsed on a day when there was a rainfall of 2.66 inches. It resulted in death of one child and one adult who were playing in the rain. a)Act of God, No liability arises. b) No liability. The deceased shouldn’t have played in the rain. c)2.66 inches rainfall is not extraordinary. The defendant will be liable. d)both (a) and (b) Note: 2.66 inch rainfall can be expected during rainy season. The Natural force is not that great in this case. So the defence should fail. Private Defence The law permits use of reasonable force to protect one’s person or property. If the defendant uses the force which is necessary for self defence, he will not be liable for the harm caused thereby. The use of force is justified only for the purpose of defence. Law permits use of reasonable force such as broken glasses or a fierce dog to cover one’s property. Spring guns usage or live wires usage is not reasonable. The defendant a land owner had laid some live electric wire on his land. The plaintiff while crossing it at night in order to reach his land received a shock from the wire. The defendant had given no warning as such. a)No liability. It was an act of private defence by the defendant to save his property. b)The defendant did the right thing by not issuing a warning. He is not liable for the same. c)Both (a) and (b) d)Liable for using unreasonable method. (Live wire) The defendant had put up spring guns in the garden without fixing any notice about the same and a trespasser was seriously injured by its automatic discharge. a)no liability. It was an act of private defence by the defendant to save his property. b)The defendant did the right thing by not issuing a warning. He is not liable for the same. c)Both (a) and (b) d)Liable for using unreasonable method. Compensation can be claimed (Spring guns) There was a quarrel between Jack and Jone. Jack got infuriated at Jone’s comment and he slapped him. Jone drew his sword and cut off Jack’s hand. Jone took the defence of Private defence in torts. a)Jone’s defence shall fail. The force was not reasonable. (Using of a sword) b)reasonable force used by Jone. No liability. c) Volenti non fit injuria on the part of Jack. He himself took the risk. This was foreseeable. d)both (b) and (c) |  | | |  |  |
No comments:
Post a Comment