Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

P, owner of a car, asked his friend Q to drive the car to Bombay where he would join him. As the car was about five kilometers from Bombay it hit a pedestrian R, on account of Q's negligent driving and injured him seriously. R sued P for damages. In this case:

P, owner of a car, asked his friend Q to drive the car to Bombay where he would join him. As the car was about five kilometers from Bombay it hit a pedestrian R, on account of Q's negligent driving and injured him seriously. R sued P for damages. In this case: Correct Answer Since Q was driving P's car, Q was under authority, P is liable

Related Questions

X, the owner of a car, asked his friend Y to drive the car to his office. As the car was near his (X's) office, it hit a pedestrian P on account of Y's negligent driving and injured him seriously. P sued X for damages. Which one of the following is correct regarding the above?
An army truck driven by an army driver, while going to check the armymen on duties, hit X, a pedestrian, and injured him seriously on account of rash and negligent driving. M sued the Government of India. The defence was a sovereign functions.
A and B, unknown to D, sought and got a lift in D's car, but on account of some mechanical defect in the car, of which D was not aware, one of the front wheels of the car got detached and flew away and the car turned turtle. A and B suffered serious injuries and later A, died of his injuries. B and A's next of kin sued D for damages for negligent driving. What defence does D have?
A' is the owner of a furniture shop and 'B' is employed in that shop as a delivery-man. In which of the following cases, 'A' would be liable in a suit filed by the injured plaintiff 'C' for the action of 'B'?
Case 1. One day, 'B' was on his delivery route when he met his friend 'D'. 'D' requested 'B' to drop him at the railway station as he was getting late for the train. 'B' drove very fast and while returning back from the railway station, 'B' negligently ran over 'C'.
Case 2. One day, 'B' was on his delivery route when he met 'D'. As both had met after long time, 'B' decided to have lunch with his friend 'D'. 'B' drove out of his way to a nearby restaurant and had lunch there. While driving back from there, 'B' negligently ran over 'C'.
A entrusted his car to B for plying it as a taxi. B employed C as a cleaner. B gave the taxi to C for taking a driving test and to obtain a driving licence. C while giving the driving test seriously injured D. D filed a case against A, the owner of the vehicle.
A person covers the first 176 kilometers at a speed of 16 kilometers/hour and the next 64 kilometers at a speed of 32 kilometers/hour. What would be the approximate average speed for the first 240 kilometers of the journey? A. 13 Km/h B. 27 Km/h C. 18.5 Km/h D. 21 Km/h
Principle: A principal is vicariously liable for the tort of his agent committed within the course of his authority.
Facts: 'A', who was about to compete in a car raliy, asked his friend, 'B', to drive his A's car from Delhi to Chandigarh so as to meet 'A' there at the end of the rally. 'B' was to bring in the car a suitcase for 'A', and, after the rally, they were both to take the car and go to Shimla. 'B' departed from Delhi but, before reaching Chandigarh, negligently collided with plaintiffs car which was damaged. Plaintiff claimed damages from 'A' and 'B'.
A woman was alighting from a tram car when a speeding reckless motorcyclist collided with a motor car little away in the centre of the road. In that collision the negligent motorcyclist was killed on the spot. The woman heard the bang and saw the blood on the road thought not the body of the injured man. She was in an advanced stage of pregnancy. Due to the nervous shock sustained by her, she gave birth to a still born baby. She sued the representatives of the motorcyclist to recover damages. Which one of the following propositions is correct as decided in a leading case?
D left his horse and van unattended in a crowded street and went to see his friend in the adjoining street. While D was away, a dog barked and pounced on the horse. The horse got frightened and started running furiously along the road with the van. P, a pedestrian, saw X in danger of being run over and in order to save him pushed him away, but in doing so, he himself was injured. P sues D for damages:
Principle: An occupier or owner of land owes a duty to warn a suspected trespasser of deadly conditions on the land which would be hidden to a trespasser, but of which the property owner is aware.
Factual Situation: Shiva, the owner of a Fire Cracker Factory owned a large plot of land, which he used for testing his crackers. One day while he was about to set fire to some special crackers, he noticed some children wandering on his land. Shiva did not pay any attention to the children as according to him they were trespassers. He set fire to the test crackers. One of the crackers which was supposed to ignite a series of crackers up in the sky at a height of 100 metres, did not burst in the sky. Instead, it fell to the ground and exploded, injuring one of the children. In a suit for compensation initiated by the parents of the injured child, how would you decide?