Q.

1 PRINCIPLE: a man cannot complain of harm to the chances of which he has exposed
himself with knowledge and his free will.
FACTS: arun had a horse that he took to his farms for grazing. Arun’s horse intruded into
tarun’s farms which was adjacent to arun’s farms where arun has actually taken his horse for
grazing the grass. Tarun was a scientist and used to grow varied varied variety of plants for
experimentation. He had put up a board outside saying “poisonous fruits on the farmland”.
The horse ate poisonous fruits growing in tarun’s field and died thereafter. arun sued tarun for
compensation for the death of his horse. Decide:
(a) Tarun is liable for providing compensation to arun as arun’s horse died after eating
the poisonous fruits on tarun’s land.
(b) Tarun is not liable for providing compensation to arun as tarun did not know that
tarun’s horse would eat fruits from his field.
(c) Tarun is not liable for providing compensation to arun as arun’s horse intruded into
tarun’s farms and ate the fruits.
(d) None of the above.
SOLUTION: C
EXPLANATION: here arun should have taken care that the horse did not trespass into
gautam’s field outside which it was clearly stated on a board regarding poisonous fruits.

Q.2 PRINCIPLE: a man cannot complain of harm to the chances of which he has exposed
himself with knowledge and his free will.
FACTS: AGRA park council owned the AGRA health park. It had previously been a sand
quarry and they transformed it into a park for public use. An artificial lake was created in the
park which was surrounded by sandy banks. Swimming was not permitted in the lake and
notices were posted at the entrance saying “DANGEROUS WATER.NO SWIMMING”
security personnel’s were employed to prevent swimming but some of rude became rude to
security and continued to swim. Aman, naman, and gagan planned to visit the park for picnic.
while there aman dived into the lake and hit his head on the sandy bottom leaving his
paralytic. He subsequently brought proceedings against for loss of earnings, loss of quality of
life and cost of the care he would require as a result of his injuries. Decide:
(a)AGRA park council is not liable to provide compensation as aman was a trespasser into
the Park he violated the rules of the park.
(b)Agra park council is not liable to provide compensation as aman suffered his injury
because he chooses to indulge in an activity which had inherent dangers, not because the
premises were in a dangerous state.
(c)Agra park council is not liable to provide compensation as there was no duty to warm or
take steps to prevent aman from driving the dangerous were perfectly obvious.
(d) None of the above.
SOLUTION: B
EXPLANATION: here the risk arose from aman’s own action. He was a person of full
capacity who voluntarily and without pressure or inducement engaged in an activity which
had an inherent risk.

Q.3 AND Q.4 ARE COMMON SETS OF PRINCIPLES AND FACTS.

PRINCIPLE 1: liability for negligence may be imposed as a legal consequence of a person’s
act or of his omission if he is under a legal duty to act.
PRINCIPLE 2: res ipsa loquitur – translates to “the thing speaks for itself” .it is rule evidence
that shifts the onus to disprove negligence on the person whose action has led to the damage.
Q.3 FACTS: XYZ airlines had a contract with hotel NEST for the stay of its crew members.
ahoy, one of the pilots employed with the airlines, was staying at the hotel. In the evening he
took a dive in the pool. It turned out of the pool design was defective and abhay's head hit
the bottom of the pool causing paralises to his body and that after 7 years.abhay relatives
sued for the damages. The hotel plead that they had no contract with abhay and are not liable.
DECIDE:
(a) The hotel is liable and could be sued as abhay was injured due to faulty design of the pool.
Since abhay was a beneficiary under the contract between the hotel and xyz airlines his
relatives could sue the hotel was damages
(b) The hotel is not liable and could not be sued as abhay was a stranger to the contract
between the hotel xyz airlines. The hotel took care is, maintaining the pool and also had a
signboard the entrance which stated “enter at your own risk”
(c) The hotel is not liable as the sign board was a sign of res ipsa loquitur and abhay should
have read have sign board before he entered the pool.
(d) None of the above
SOLUTION: A
EXPLANATION: here accident is caused due to the faulty design of the swimming pool
which is a sheer incident of negligence of hotel.

Q.4. what if abhay was drunk when he entered the pool. Can the hotel held liable in such a
case?
(A) no
(b) Yes
(c) Maybes
(d) None of the above
SOLUTION: B
EXPLANATION: here negligence will be contributory but hotel is almost liable to an extent
because it doesn’t imply that if a person is in a drunken state so hotel can be faulty in
designing the pool.

Q.5 Principle: an agreement to do an act i9mpossible in itself cannot be enforced by court of

law.
Facts: ashutosh agrees with his girl friend sarah to pluck stars from the sky through this
extraordinary will power, and bring them down on earth for her within a week and will fulfill
his promise at any cost for her girlfriend sarah. After the expiry of one week, Sarah filed the
suit for damages against ashutosh for the breach of contract as ashutosh failed to perform his
promise within a week. Decide whether ashutosh will be liable or not for the breach of
contract?
(1) Sarah can succeed in getting damages as a ashutosh has deceived her
(2) Ashutosh cannot be liable as he honestly believes that his love for Sarah is true and
therefore, he will succeed in his Endeavour.
(3) The court cannot entertain such as the suit act promised under the agreement is
impossible in itself.
(4) Ashutosh can be held liable for making and absurd promise.
SOLUTION: 3
EXPLANATION: here the promise made by ashutosh is totally out of the ambit of the court
as court does not deal with the trifling matters and does not entertain those agreements which
are not impossible.