LAW OF TORTS

1. Dr. Ramayya took his car to Dolphin Co. Ltd., a garage which tie had been frequentation,
for servicing. Since Dolphin Co. Ltd. was out of the way, Dr. Ramayya requested the
Owner to drop him near a bus terminal so that he may get back to his work. The owner
directed a mechanic by name Shanker to drop Dr. Ramayya in the same car which he had
brought for servicing and bring the car back. On the way, the car collided with a lofty,
due to the negligence of Shankar. The owner of the lorry, James, is seeking the legal
advice as to the course of action.
Principle:
Where the owner of a vehicle, being himself in possession and occupation of it, requests
or allows another person to drive, the owner is liable as principal for damage caused by
the person actually driving.
Answers:
(1) Dr. Ramayya is liable, because the car belongs to him and he requested for the
assistance of Shankar.
(2) Dolphin Co. Ltd., is liable, because Shankar is their driver.
(3) Dr. Ramayya is liable, because he could have asked Shankar to drive carefully.
(4) Dolphin Co. Ltd., is liable, because, the car is entrusted to their care.
Explanation: The servicing company is personally liable because the owner of the co.
himself directed the mechanic to drop the owner and entrusted the car to mechanic under
the capacity of master when the owner of the car handover the car to the garage.

2. Facts: Hanuman Stores sent certain items in horse carriage to a customer’s house, which
happened to be by the side of a main road and neat a School Zone. The driver of the
carriage delivered the items to the customers and went inside the house to collect the
receipt, leaving the carriage unattended on the road. Some naughty children of nearby
school threw stones at the horses. The horses ran in confusion and they were about to run
over an old woman. A traffic police, at great risk to his life. Somehow seized the horses
and stopped the carriage. He suffered serious personal injuries in the process. ‘Policeman
seeks compensation from hanuman Stores.
Principles:
(1) Whoever is under a duty of care to another shall be liable for any injury to the latter
directly resulting from the breach of that duty.
(2) Harm suffered voluntarily does not constitute legal injury.
Answers:
I (a) Hanuman stores is not liable, because they do not owe a duty of care to the old woman
or policeman.
(b) Hanuman Stores is liable, because they owe a duty of care to all the users of the road
(c) Both old woman and policeman could have taken reasonable care to protect themselves.

II (a) Hanuman Stores is not liable because some naughty children scared away their horsed.
(b) The School management ought to have taken care to discipline the children.
(c) The Hanuman Stores is liable because the driver ought to have anticipated the results
on such negligence.
Explanation: Hanuman stores is liable because their driver left the horses carelessly unattended
which posed a great threat of danger to the lives of the persons using the road.

3. Facts: The Consolidated Motors was a firm dealing with second hand cars. Suresh came to
the office of the firm and offered to sell their cars, provided he would get 8% commission
on cars sold by him. The Consolidated Motors agreed to the proposition. One day, Suresh
took out a car for the purpose of demonstration to a prospective client and in the course of
demonstration; he knocked down Ramesh and injured him. Ramesh is seeking legal
remedy. The main issue is whether Suresh is an agent of Consolidated Motors.
Principles:
(1) A Principal shall be liable for all the acts of his agent done in the course of employment.
(2) A shall be considered as an agent of B, provided that:
(a) B remunerates A and
(b) B has direction and control over what A is doing.
Answers:
(1) Suresh is the agent of Consolidated Motors, because he gets remuneration by way of
commission.
(2) Suresh is not the agent of Consolidated Motors, because, the commission is not the
same as remuneration.
(3) Suresh is not the agent of Consolidated Motors because the latter do not have control
over his activities.
Explanation: Suresh is the agent of the consolidated motors because as per the principle “A
shall be considered as an agent of B, provided that “B remunerates A” and as per the
facts given in the question Suresh was given commission by the company.

4. Facts:
Shaila Devi opened a S.B. Account with Oriental Bank, and a cousin of her by name
Mohan, who was a clerk in that Bank, helped her to complete the formalities. Subsequently
she used to entrust whatever money she was getting to Mohan along with her passbook and
Mohan used to return the passbook with the relevant entries. One day Shaila Devi
discovered that Mohan, instead of crediting the money to her account, had been
misappropriating it and the entries in the passbook were made by him without
authorization. Sheila Devi seeks compensation from Oriental Bank.
Principles:
A master shall be liable for the fraudulent acts committed by his servant in the course of
employment.
Answers:
(1) Oriental Bank shall be liable because Mohan was action in the course of employment.
(2) Oriental Bank shall not be liable, because Mohan was not acting in the course of
employment.
(3) Oriental Bank was not liable, because Shaila Devi was negligent.
Explanation: Shaila was handing over the money and the passbook to Mohan is his personal
capacity and not in his professional capacity and thus Oriental bank is not liable because
Mohan was not acting in the course of employment.

5. Facts:
Mahesh was a driver working in a company Lipton and Co. One day, the Manager asked
him to drop a customer at the airport and get back at the earliest. On his way back from the
airport, he happened to see his fiancé Roopa waiting for a bus to go home. He offered to
drop her at home, which happened to be close to his office. She got into the car and soon
thereafter; the car somersaulted due to the negligence of Mahesh. Roopa was thrown out of
the car and suffered multiple injuries. She seeks compensation from Lipton and Co.
Principles:
A master is liable for the acts committed by his servant in the course of employment.
Answers:
(1) Lipton & Co., shall be liable, because Mahesh was in the course of their employment at the
time of accident.
(2) Lipton & Co., shall not be liable. Mahesh was not in the course of employment when he took
Roopa inside the car.
(3) Roop got into the car at her own risk, and therefore, she cannot sue anybody.
Explanation: Lipton and co. is liable because Mahesh done everything during the course of
employment, and in his professional capacity.

6. Facts:
Krishnam went to Rama Stores and asked the shop – keeper to give him a good bread. The
shop – keeper replied: “People normally buy Modern Bread from me”. Krishnam bought a
packer of Modern Bread. It so happened that there was a stone embedded in one of the
bread slices and it broke Krishnan’s teeth, while eating the bread. Krishnan seeks
compensation from Rama Stores and Modern Bread Company.
Principles:
(a) Manufacturer is liable for the latent defects in the goods manufactured by him.
(b) A seller is relieved of any liability for the defects in goods sold by him, if the purchaser
chooses his goods by trade name and not by relying upon the judgment and skill of the
seller.
Answer:
(1) “Modern bread company” alone will be liable.
(2) Rama Stores alone will be liable.
(3) Both Modern Bread Company and Rama Stores will be liable.
(4) None of them will be liable, since Krishnan ought to have checked the bread before
eating it.
Explanation: Both the company and the seller (Rama store) is liable because as per the principle
Manufacturer is liable for the defect he has done in his manufactured goods whereas,
seller is liable because he made the customer to rely upon the judgement and skill.
7. Facts:
Rajiv is a servant of Jawaharlal. On his way to Jawahar’s house to report for duty, he goes
to have a cup of coffee. There he sees Singh and accuses Mr. Singh of being a dishonest
person. Mr. Singh wants to sue Jawaharlal, as Rajiv is Jawahar’s servant.
Principles:
(I) Master is liable for the wrongful acts committed by servants, in the course of their
employment if third parties suffer damages in consequence.
(II) However the master is not liable if the wrongful act was committed by the servant has
no connection what so ever with the servant’s contract of employment.
(III) If a person by an act lowers the reputation of another in the eye of right thinking
people, then the person who suffered loss of reputation can sue for damages.

Answers: (a) Jawaharlal is liable because Rajiv defamed Singh

(b) Jawaharlal is not liable as the defamation was not in the course of Rajiv’s employment.
(c) Rajiv is liable even though the defamation was not in the course of employment.
(d) None of the above answers is correct.
Explanation: Jawahar is not liable because Rajiv did everything in his personal capacity when
he went to have a cup of coffee, and so the accusation done by Rajiv was outside the
course of employment.

8. Rama told Sita “You are a thief. You stole my heart”. Sita was furious and she felt that she
was defamed.
Principles:
(I) “If a person makes a statement that lowers the reputation of another person in the eyes
of right thinking people, then it is defamation.
(II) The person whose reputation is affected can sue the culprit and recover damages.

Answers:
(a) Rama has defamed Sita and hence he is liable to pay damages.
 (b) Rama is liable to pay as Sita’s reputation was lowered in the eyes of right thinking
people.
(c) Rama is not responsible, as right thinking people will not mistake this statement.
(d) None of the above answers is correct.
Explanation: Rama is not liable because the statement made by him will not lower the reputation
of Sita in the eyes of right thinking members of society.

9. Vasu was walking on a street. When Vasu was crossing Venkar’s house, a bag of rice fell on
Vasu and he was injured. But he did not know what caused the bag of rice to fall on him.
(I) In order to succeed in an action for damages, the person who files the case must prove
that the defendant is at fault.
(II) However, if the factors which caused the accident were in the normal course of the
defendant and if the accident is of such a nature that it would not have happened, in the
normal than the law presumes fault on the part of the persons who had control over the
factors that caused the accident.
Answers:
In an action for damages brought by Vasu:
(a) Vasu cannot succeed, as he could not prove the Venkar was at fault.
(b) Vasu can succeed because the law will presume that Venkar is at fault.
(c) Vasu can succeed as the rice bag fell on him.
(d) None of the above answers is correct.
Explanation: Vasu in entitled for claiming the damages because the accident happened was not
under the normal circumstances and it would not have happened, in the normal than the
law presumes fault on the part of the persons who had control over the factors that caused
the accident.