The defendant company has given instructions to the driver of its vehicle not to allow any unauthorised person to board the vehicle. A similar information was pasted on the vehicle itself stating that no unauthorised person was permitted to travel in the vehicle. The driver allowed an unauthorised passenger to board and drove negligently causing an accident in which the unauthorised passenger was killed. The company is:

The management of a school has given instruction of the driver of its vehicle not to allow any unauthorized person to board the vehicle. A similar information was pasted on the vehicle itself stated that no unauthorized person was permitted to travel in the vehicle. The driver allowed an unauthorized passenger to board and drove negligently causing an accident in which the unauthorized passenger was killed. The school management is

A

Liable because the driver was negligent in permitting the deceased to travel for which the school management was vicariously liable

B

Not liable because by violating the instruction of the company, the driver was acting outside his course of employment

C

Liable because mere pasting of information 'the unauthorized travel was not permitted' does not negate liability of the school management

D

Not liable because the passenger himself had voluntarily chosen to travel in the vehicle unauthorizedly

The driver of a bus belonging to the defendant permitted the conductor to drive the bus. The conductor drove negligently causing accident resulting in injuries to the plaintiff. The defendant would be:

A

Liable because as master of the conductor the defendant would be vicariously liable for the conductor's negligence

B

Not liable because the driver by permitting the conductor to drive had done an unauthorised act for which his master the defendant, could not be held liable

C

Liable because permission given by driver to the conductors to driver was a negligent act of the driver for which his master, the defendant, would be liable

D

Not liable because the driver by not driving and the conductor by driving were both acting unauthorisedly for which their master, the defendant, could not be held liable

'A' lent his lorry and the driver to 'B' for a few days on B's request for his daughter's marriage and for which 'B' recurred the lorry along with driver. While acting under the orders of 'B' the driver drove negligently and caused an accident resulting in injuries to the plaintiff. In the case:

A

'A' the permanent employer of the driver. He would be liable because he had lent the services of his servant the driver along with a complicated piece of machinery, the lorry

B

'B' under whose orders the driver was working at the time of the accident, would be liable because the driver was following the orders of 'B' and not of 'A' at the time

C

Both 'A' and 'B' would be liable because 'A', as the permanent employer, and 'B', as the person under whose authority the driver was working at the time, were responsible for the driver's negligence

D

Neither 'A' nor 'B' would be liable and only the driver would be liable as he alone had committed the negligent act

A driver left his village and drove North for 20 km after which he stopped for breakfast. Then he turned left and drove another 30 km, when he stoppedfor lunch. After some rest, he again turned left and drove 20 km before stopping for evening tea. Once more he turned left and drove 30 km to reach the town wherehe had supper. After evening tea, in which direction did he drive?

A

West

B

East

C

North

D

South

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

'A' is liable in both cases

B

'A' is not at all liable

C

'A' is liable only in Case 1

D

'A' is liable only in Case 2

X, a driver of a State vehicle, while returning from the workshop after getting the vehicle serviced, drove it negligently and killed Y, who was walking on the road. Y's widow sued the State Government for damages. What defence, if any, the State Government has:

A

Of statutory authority

B

Of inevitable accident

C

None, as driving the jeep back from the workshop is not a sovereign function

D

Contributory negligence

The accused driver of a truck while driving on the left side i.e., his side of the road, sees a cyclist coming from the opposite direction, but on the wrong side of the road i.e. in the lane on which the truck was being driven; the road being narrow and the truck driver sensing that the cyclist was peddling negligently, maneuvers his truck on the opposite lane and simultaneously the cyclist suddenly moves to his lane and as a result the truck over-runs the cyclist, causing the death of cyclist. The truck driver is not guilty of the offence of causing death by rash and negligent act because:

A

He did not have the necessary mens rea

B

He acted bona fide

C

The truck driver upon seeing the risk tried to avoid the risk

D

Was justified in driving the truck on to the opposite lane

Studies of fatal automobile accidents reveal that , in the majority of cases in which one occupant of an automobile is killed another survives, it is the passenger , not the driver , who is killed. It is ironic that the innocent passenger should suffer for the driver's carelessness, while the driver often suffers only minor injuries or none at all. Which of the following is an assumption underlying the reasoning in the passage above?

A

In most fatal automobile accidents , the driver of a car in which an occupant is killed is at fault .

B

Most deaths in fatal automobile accidents are suffered by occupants of cars rather then by pedestrians .

C

Auto safety experts should increase their efforts to provide protection for those in the passenger seats of automobiles

D

Automobile passengers sometimes play a contributing role in causing auto accidents

You are given a question and two statements. Idientify which of the statements is/are sufficient to answer the question. Question: In a city, some people travel to work by bus, some people travel to work by train, some people travel to work by both bus and train, and some travel to work neither by bus, nor by train. The number of people who travel to work by both bus and train is how much less than the number of people who travel to work by neither? Statements: (1) In the city, there are 384 people who travel to work by bus. (2) In the city, there are 672 people who travel to work by train,

A

Both statements together are sufficient to answer the question, but neither statement alone is sufficient.

B

Statements (1) and (2) together are not sufficient to answer the question.

C

Statement (2) alone is sufficient to answer the question, but statement (1) alone is not sufficient

D

Statement (1) alone is sufficient to answer the question, but statement (2) alone is not sufficient.

Mayank started driving from his office to the hotel. He drove 10 km towards north. From there, he turned right and drove 8 km. Then, he turned right and drove 6 km. Again, he turned right and drove 5 km and reached his hotel. What is the shortest distance from the office to his hotel?

A

9 km

B

6 km

C

2 km

D

5 km

Related Questions