UPSC Mains Law Paper Topic : Negligence
- Study very carefully the following two situations: (94/II/3a/30) Situation A : While playing on a cricket ground owned by the defendant a batsman hit the ball so hard that it went over the boundary wall and hit the plaintiff walking on an adjoining street. In the history of the eighty year old ground the ball had been so hit out five or six times. Situation B : Trespassing children used to play football in an open area belonging to the defendant adjoining a busy road. In the absence of a high boundary wall the ball used to go on to the road frequently and children used to go there to fetch the ball back. One day the ball was shot out on the road where it hit a scooter driver causing him to fall and suffer injuries. Compare the tortuous liability of the defendants in above mentioned situations. Give reasons and cite case law.
- “The maxim Res Ipsa Loquituri is not a rule of Law but a rule of Evidence.” Explain and illustrate. (94/II/1c/20)
- Examine the tortious liability of A in the following: (96/II/3b(ii)/15) Branches of trees grown on B’s land overhang on the side of A, his neighbour. A repeatedly requests B to cut off these overhanging branches so that A is able to enjoy sunlight. B does not pay heed to these requests. A goes on to the side of B and cuts off those branches.
- Examine how and when a duty of care arises, A breach of which on the part of the defendant makes him liable in an action for negligence. What is the liability, if any, for negligent mis- statement which causes financial loss to the plaintiff ? (96/II/1d/20)
- “Statutory right affords no protection if negligence, unreasonable conduct, want of jurisdiction or irregularity is proved.” Comment. (99/II/3a/30)
- Explain the law relating to contributory negligence of children. (00/II/3a/30)
- Explain the occupier’s liability in respect of structures. (00/II/2b/30)
- “In the tort of negligence the question as to whether the defendant has acted as a reasonable man or not depends on many factors.” Discuss. (01/II/3a/30)
- “When a plaintiff acts as a reasonable and prudent man, he is entitled to damages even though he selects the more dangerous alternative when confronted by the defendant’s negligence.” Discuss. (03/II/1d/20)
- The doctrine of alternative danger” is the extention of the doctrine of “contributory negligence”. Discuss. (07/II/1C/20)
