Page 1 :
S¢, , Legal Aptitude / Legal Reasoning 93, , ai takes aim and pulls the trigger, he would be guilty, \ ofattempt:, , Exampte 18, LEGAL PRINCIPLES:, , A. Preparation to commit an offence is not an, offence., , B. After one has finished preparation to commit, an offence, any act done towards committing, the offence with the intention to commit it, is, an attempt to commit the offence, which is by, itself an offence., , FACTUAL SITUATION: A wants to kill B. He buys, , a gun and cartridges for committing the murder. He, , “then sets out searching for B and when he sees B, he, , " Ioads his gun and takes aim and pulls the trigger. The, gun did not fire., , ™ (a) Ais guilty of attempt to murder from the time, , he sets out in search of B., , (b) A is guilty of attempt from the moment he, lpads his gun., , A is guilty of attempt from the ‘moment he, , ‘ takes aim at B., , (d) None of the above., , Answer: (c), Vv, , EXAMPLE 19, LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Whoever attempts to commit, , Re suicide and does anything towards killing himself is, said to have committed an offence., b FACTUAL SITUATION: Mr. Ashoka was dejected, in his life. He had neither any interest in life nor any, interest to live nor any goals to achieve. He was not, getting proper sleep. In order to get good sleep, he used, 1 totake sleeping tablets. One day he has consumed lot of, j sleeping tablets. He knew that consuming such heavy, { quantity of sleeping tablets could be fatal. His family, {| Members realized the situation and admitted him to the, , hospital, where he was treated in the emergency ward., y Now he is alright., y/ (@) Mr. Ashoka needs psychiatric treatment., ¢ (b) Mr. Ashoka has not committed any offence as, q he has only consumed lot of sleeping tablets,, ? which anyway he was taking earlier., 9 SS Mr. Ashoka has committed the offence of, , attempt to commit suicide., , (d) Mr. Ashoka should have taken the sleeping, , tablets under the supervision of the Roctor,, i Answer: (c) qwer, Sedition ~, Section 124A of IPC defines the offence of sedition., , The offence of sedition is doing of certain acts which, would bring the Government established by law .in, , India into hatred or contempt or create disaffection, against it. It must be noted that incitement to violence, against the State is an essential ingredient of the offence, of sedition. Therefore, if a political leader appeals to, the masses to remove a government by democratic, means say by voting, he cannot be charged for sedition., The punishment for such offence is life imprisonment, or imprisonment upto 3 years or with fine depending, upon gravity., Exampe 20, , LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Whoever by words, signs, or otherwise brings into hatred or contempt or incites, disaffection towards the Government established by, law in India shall be punished with imprisonment for, life., , FACTUAL SITUATION: In a public meeting,, Yashpal Reddy, the leader of an opposition party, thunders, “This is a government of scoundrels,, bootleggers and scamsters. They deserve to be unseated., Teach them a lesson in the coming elections by voting, them out of power”. The Government is contemplating, to prosecute Yashpal Reddy., , (a) Yashpal Reddy is guilty of sedition for, having made irresponsible and inflammatory, statements against the Government., , Yashpal Reddy is not guilty of sedition as he, is only exercising his freedom of speech in, public. ‘, , (c) Yashpal Reddy is guilty of sedition, as his, statement would incite people to violence, leading to breakdown of law and order., , The correct answer is (b)., , Mr. Reddy is not inciting the public to use violence, or attack with weapons against the Government. He is, telling to use democratic means i.e., votes to oust the, Government. He cannot be held liable for sedition., , B. LAW OF TORTS, , The word ‘tort’ is derived from the latin word, ‘tortunt’ meaning thereby ‘twisted’ or ‘crooked’ or ‘what, is not straight’. Thus, the word ‘tort’ signifies wrong., A tort is a civil wrong as opposed to public wrong. A, civil wrong, also known as private wrong i.e., a wrong, against an individual and not against the state which, happens in case of a criminal or public wrong. But all, civil wrongs are not torts. Breach of contract is a civil, wrong but it is not a tort. This is because of the damages, or compensation to be paid by the party committing, such breach of contract is normally liquidated or preestimated or fixed in advance in the agreement itself. In, tort, damages are unliquidated ie., not pre-determined, or which are to be determined by the Court. The basic, principle behind action for tort is “wbi jus ibi remedium”., , at]

Page 2 :
94, , Tt means where there is a right, there is a remedy. In, order to constitute a tort, it is essential that:, 1, There must be some act or omission on the part, of defendant i.e., the wrong doer., 2. Such act or omission has caused a legal damage, ic., infringement of some legal right of the, , plaintiff., Nature of a Tort, Nature of a tort can be best understood by, distinguishing:, , (1) Tort and crime, wm Tort and Breach of Contract., , ‘ Tort and Crime, <® In tort, there is an infringement of private or, civil rights of individual. In crime, there is a breach of, public rights which affect the whole community., ‘(b) In tort, the main aim is to recompensate the, phintife for the loss suffered by him. In crime, the main, aim is to punish the accused if convicted., , Tort and Breach of Contract, Za) In tort, there is a breach of duty which is fixed, by law. In contract, there is a breach of duty which is, fixed by the contracting parties. ‘, , (b) In tort, damages are generally unliquidated, and are determined by the Court on the facts and, circumstances of the case. Damages are fixed according, to the terms and conditions of contract., , Act of Omission, In order to succeed in an action for tort, the, defendant must have done something which he is, supposed not to have done, or must have omitted to do, something which he was supposed to have done to the, plaintiff., EXAMPLES, » A digs a pit on the road, B falls into it. A is liable, to Bin tort., (b) A trepasses on B’s land and cause some, ~ nuisance. A is liable to B in tort., (c) The clock tower in Chandni Chowk, Delhi fell, / Tesulting in the death of a number of persons., The Municipal Corporation has omitted to, keep the clock tower in proper repair, Held, the, Corporation was liable., , Legal Damage, Legal damage or injury means infringement, or violation of some legal right of the plaintiff. Two, important maxims explain this concept and liability in, torts. They are:, , Guide to LL.B. Entrance Examination, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , —“1. Damnum sine injuria, , 2. Injuria sine damnum, 4 DAMNUM SINE INJURIA: Damage Without, , wrong. Damnum means damage or loss in reg alee, money, comfort, health etc., Injuria means infringe q, of a right conferred by law on a plaintiff. The Bim, damnum sine injuria means that damage is suffereg, the plaintiff without any violation of his legal right, this there is no redress at law. oe, , The leading case on the point is:, , A, a school teacher, opened a school next door, his neighbour's school. Students from the neighbouy, school flocked to A’s school. Held, the neighbour tad, no cause of action as it was a case of damnur, sing, injuria. Learned judge observed in this case: “Thus i, I have a mill, and my neighbour sets up another, and thereby the profits of my mill fall off, I cannot bri,, an action against him and yet I have suffered damage",, , INJURIA SINE DAMNUM: It means legal inj, has been suffered or a legal right is infringed or violateq |, but no actual harm or loss is caused to the plaintif |, It is actionable under torts. In a celebrated English!, case, Ashby v. White, A was wrongfully prevented, by the Returning Officer from exercising his vote a |, a Parliamentary election. No loss was suffered by 4 J, because the candidate for whom he wanted to vote —, got elected by a huge margin. Held, A would recover, damages on the ground that his legal right to vote was, violated by the Retuming Officer., , Similarly, a voter’s name was wrongfully omitted, from voters’ list. This prevented him from casting his, vote. Held, he suffered a legal wrong for which an, action in tort would lie., , - EXAMPLE 21, , EGAL PRINCIPLE: If there is infringement, , of legal right of a person, he can sue under torts for, , compensation even if he has not suffered any harmo, loss of a single penny., , FACTUAL SITUATION: Mr. B, a bank manager, refuses to honour a cheque presented by C, a customer., He knows that C has sufficient funds in his accoutt, Can C sue B under torts and claim compensation?, , Answers:, , ) The Banker has violated legal right of C. He, can be sued under torts to pay compensatio”:, , (b) The entire money of C in his bank account F, , intact. He suffers no damage. He should 8°, “no compensation. i the, (c) {B can‘plead extraordinary situation 1" He,, bank at that point of time due to whi, could not honour the cheque. for he, , The answer is (a). Banker would be liable © Fu, , causing legal damage to C.

Page 3 :
Legal Aptitude / Legal Reasoning 95, , EXAMPLE 22, a| LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Violation of a Legal Right,, a with or without damage, gives rise to a tort., Ny FACTUAL SITUATION: ‘A’ establishes a coaching, May class and charge & 5000 per year as fees. A’s neighbour, red) ‘5’ establishes another coaching class thereby creating, mn a competition. This forces A to reduce his fees to % 3000, ; per year. ,, QUESTION: Can ‘A’ claim damages from ‘B’ for, the loss caused to him?, (a) Yes, he can as B has violated his Legal Right., (b) No, A has reduced the fees on his own., i) No, because though there was damage there, was no legal injury., (d) None of the above., The correct answer is (c)., , EXAMPLE 23, , : LEGAL PRINCIPLE: A parent is not liable for, , a tort committed by his/her child except when the, parent affords the child an opportunity to commit the, tort., ; FACTUAL SITUATION: A mother takes her 7 years, by old son with her to market. On reaching the market she, yy shuts the car ignition, pulls the handbrake and puts, the car in gear. She leaves her son in the car only. The, child starts playing with the car, she release the brakes, and pushes the gear lever to neutral. As a result, the, car starts moving down the road and runs down a, , Pedestrian., ¥ QUESTION: What is the liability of the mother?, , (a) The Mother is not liable because she took, great care to ensure that the car would remain, stationary., , The Mother is liable because she was, , , , ss fb), , isi negligent., ro! (c) The son is liable because his action caused, accident., , (d) The pedestrian is liable as he should have, been careful while walking on the road., The correct answer is (b)., , AAR, , Example 24, , LEGAL PRINCIPLE: A person, who lawfully, , brings on his land something which though harmless,, , Sf but will do mischief if it escape, must keep it at his, , $ peril, and if he does not, he is answerable for all the, bf damages., , FACTUAL SITUATION: ‘A’ was the owner of a, , 4 mull. In order to supply it with water he constructed a, , 3 Tervoir upon nearby land by employing engincers, , and contractors, ‘B’ was the owner of coal mines,, , yf under lands, close to but not adjoining the premises on, , r, , which the reservoir was constructed. The contractors,, while excavating for the bed of the reservoir, came, upon abandoned shafts and filled them with soil, not suspecting that that they were abandoned mine, shafts. The reservoir was completed and partly filled., Within days the bed of the reservoir gave way and, burst, leading to flow of water through the channels, connected with B’s mine. Is ‘A’ liable to pay damages, for loss caused to ‘B’?, , (a) ‘A’ is not liable because there was no, negligence on his part. He was not aware that the, reservoir bed was connected to B’s mines, , Ab) ‘A’ is liable to pay damages to ‘B’ because he, brought the water on his property which would have, caused mischief if it escaped and it did escape., , (c) ‘A’ is not liable because ‘B’ never informed, him the existence of B's mines, , (d) ‘A’ is liable because he hired the services of, unqualified engineers., , The correct answer is (b)., , Genéral Defences to Tort, “Act of God”, , ‘Act of God’ is a good defence to any action ir tort., Thus, when the damage, loss or injury is caused on, account of operation of natural forces or phenomena,, such as heavy downpour, storms, floods, earthquakes,, droughts, etc., the defendant can escape liability., , The two essential ingredients of the defence of Act, of God are:, , (a) the act must result on account of working of, natural forces and, (b). the occurrence must be extraordinary., , EXAMPLE 25, , LEGAL PRINCIPLE: An act of God is an, operation of natural forces so unexpected that no, human foresight or skill could reasonably be expected, to anticipate it., , FACTUAL SITUATION: The New Friends, Association was celebrating its 10th anniversary and, arranged for a concert by a leading musical group. The, event was organized in one of the best auditoriums and, all the tickets were sold out. On the day of the event,, an earthquake destroyed many buildings including, the auditorium. People who had purchased the tickets, asked for refund from the New Friends Association as, show could not take place., , (a) The New Friends Association must refund the, , cost of tickets., , (b) The management of the auditorium must, , refund the cost of tickets.

Page 4 :
%6 Guide to LLB. Entrance Examination, , yy The New Friends Association or any else need, not refund the cost of tickets as it was an Act, of God., (d) The ticket holders can demand the show to be, organized at a later point of time., Answer: (c), , General Defences to Tort, “Volenti non fit injuria”, , There are certain defences against the tortious, liability which a defendant can plead to avoid his, liability under tort. General defences are in favour, of defendant. Volenti non fit injuria means no man can, enforce a right which he has voluntarily waived or, abandoned. Volenti non fit injuria means harm suffered, voluntarily cannot be enforced. It means if a person, consents to take some injury or harm, he cannot sue the, other if such injury is inflicted upon him. The consent, may be expressed by words or implied (inferred) by, conduct. But consent must be free., , Examples of express consent, , (a) A invites B to a dinner at his house. He cannot, sue B for a trespass., , (b) A asks B, a surgeon to perform a lawful surgical, operation on him. He can not sue B for an injury, Teceived in the course of operation provided it is, not due to the negligence of B., , Examples of implied consent, , (a) A takes part in a wrestling or cricket match. He, has given an implied consent that if he is injured, he will have no cause of action., , (b) A spectator in a horse race or at a circus or an, automobile race impliedly consents to take upon, himself an injury which may come to him in, normal circumstances., , Exception to the Maxim: Rescue Cases, , The defence of volenti non fit injuria does not apply, to rescue cases. When a person voluntarily undertakes, a risk, out of a sense of legal or moral duty, to rescue, somebody from imminent danger, and sustains an, injury, he can recover damages in tort from the person, due to whom the situation arose., , In a leading English Case, the defendant's servant, left a two-horse van unattended in a Street. A school, boy threw a stone on the horses which were upset and, ran with the van. A police constable on duty stopped, the horses fearing that they might trample women and, children. In doing so he sustained injuries. Held, he was, entitled to recover damages., , Exampte 26, LEGAL PRINCIPLE:, A. A person cannot complain against 3 ha, which he has voluntarily consented,, B. Precautions can only be taken, reasonably foreseeable mishaps., FACTUAL SITUATION: At an athletic, during a hammer throw, the hammer came a art 5, hit a middle distance runner who was sitting 19 my, outside the throwing area. The runner sustaineg, injuries on the head and neck. The runner fileg ag, for damages. The standard precautions were taken, throwing the seven-kilogram hammer. The Tunner., (1) Would be able to recover because the organ, failed to keep the equipment in good Condition, (1) Would not be able to recover because, injuries were caused in a freak accident,, (I) Would not be liable as she agreed to Particj, in the sports meet with all the attendant risks,, (IV) Would not be able to recover because te, accident was not reasonably foreseeable. |, (a) I, (b) Wand, (c) Wl, IL, Ml and IV., Answer: (d), , Bai, , , , , , , , , , , EXxampLe 27, LEGAL PRINCIPLE: No remedy for the injuy}, caused by an act, to which one has voluntarh b, consented. i, FACTUAL SITUATION: In an exhibition cride, match, Sachin hit a full toss delivery of Shane Bo, over the fence for a six. The ball fell on the hes!, of Egghead, a spectator, and severely injured hin, Egghead had purchased a ticket costing 2 1000 to watd, the match. Egghead and the organizers of the match at, sworn enemies., (a) Egghead can recover the costs of his media, expenses from Sachin. :, (b) Egghead can recover the cost of his media, expenses from Shane Bond. i, (c) Egghead can recover the cost of his medial, expenses from the Organizers., a, , Nobody would be liable to pay anything *), ___The answer is (d). The principle of “Volenti Nhe, Fit Injuria” shall apply. Egghead has no remedy #, , has impliedly consented to such injury which may, caused in watching a cricket match., , _LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Damages cannot be clsin ?, gainst a risk to which consent has been give" " &, Principle does not apply to rescue cases.

Page 5 :
Legal Aptitude / Legal Reasoning, , fACTUAL SITUATION: X and Y bought tickets, have a ringside view of a football match. During the, ee of the game a hard kick from one of the players, oa ged the ball to hit X on his nose, causing bleeding, v nausea. After half time the organizers allowed, of more spectators than the seating capacity of the, “ym. In the resulting stampede R and S who were, ching the match since the beginning got injured., Five minutes before close of play, a part of the, tadium roof broke loose. Y rushed to save children, ttn beneath the roof and in the process injured, herself. In separate actions filed by the injured persons,, cide., (a) X shall not be able to recover as he consented, to the risk of the flying ball., , ) X shall be able to recover as the organisers, failed to take precautions against the flying, ball., , (c) X shall be able to recover as he consented to, watch the game not to be injured in it., , y X shall not be able to recover as by purchasing, a ringside seat in a football game he consented, to all the attendant risks of such watching., , The correct answer is (d)., , Vicarious Liability, , The general rule is that a person is liable for his, own acts and cannot be made liable for the acts done, by others. Vicarious liability means liability of a person, for the act done by another person. The maxim “Qui, facit per alium facit per se” provides the general principle, of vicarious liability. It means he who acts through, another acts himself. Vicarious liability arises only in, case of some relationships. These relations are:—, , (a) Employer and Employee or Master and, , Servant,, (b) Principal and agent, and, (©) Partners inter se., , ExamPLe 29, LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Even if the sovereign, , functions of the State are discharged negligently, the_», , State is not vicariously liable in to, TL SITUATION: Ram was jeweller who, , “used to carry gold for trading. One day he was arrested, , by the police and detained in the police lock up after, search. The gold and along with some other things were, , , Seized from him. On release after Court's order Ram, , demanded his gold and goods which were confiscated, by the police at the time of his arrest, but he came to, know that one of the constable who was on duty at that, time (when he was arrested) stole jewellery from the, Police Station and fled to another country. Ram filed an, action against Union of India. Decide., , 97, , (a) Ram will succeed because the servants of the, State (in this case police) were negligent and, thus caused injury., , Ram will fail because the constable who, , seized the gold had fled to foreign country, , and the gold was not with State at all., , (c)% Ram will fail because the acts of search and, seizure by the Police Officer were part of the, sovereign functions ofthe State., , (d) Ram will be provided some monetary relief., , Answer: (c), , (b), , Example 30, , LEGAL PRINCIPLE: The State is liable for, the acts of its employees. When the act is of private, nature, in the same manner and under the same, conditions as any other employer. The State is not, liable when the act is in exercise of sovereign power, or in performance of an Act of State., , FACTUAL SITUATION: An army truck was driven, by a military driver, ‘A’ and was proceeding on duty to, carry the army men on duty at different military posts., The truck hit a civilian, ‘B’ and caused material injury., The fact showed that the injury was caused due to rash, and negligent driving of A. The injured civilian brought, a suit in tort against the Union of India. The suit:, , , (a) Will succeed on the principle of qui facit per, alium facit per se., , (b) Will succeed on the master-servant, relationship between the Union of India and, the military driver., , Will fail as Union of India did not ratify rash, and negligent driving., , Will fail as the incident occurred in the, discharge of sovereign functions of the State., , (©), (a), , EXAmPLe 31, , LEGAL PRINCIPLES:, , A. The State is liable for the acts of its employees., When the act is of private nature, in the same, manner and under the same conditions as any, other employer. The State is not liable when, the act is in exercise of sovereign power or in, performance of an Act of State., , B. Even if the sovereign functions of the State, are discharged negligently, the State is not, vicariously liable in tort., , FACTUAL SITUATION: A, a trader in gold, was, arrested by the police and was detained in the police, lock up after search. The gold along with other things, belonging to him were seized. Later, he was discharged., His possessions seized by the police, except the gold,, were returned, he moved against the State in tort.