Part of the most Comprehensive Classroom Training, Prep Content & Test Series across the Nation.

From the producers of A.I.R. 2, 3 and 5 in CLAT 2019.

Legal reasoning

Law of tort-practice sheet

Passage (Q.1-Q.5): The principle of strict liability, as invoked in this case, evolved in 1866 in Rylands v.
Fletcher [1868] UKHL 1. It lays down that if a person brings on to his land and keeps there anything likely to
cause harm, he is liable to compensate for the damage if such a thing escapes and does damage to another.
The liability under this rule is strict and not having willful knowledge or no default is by no means a defence.
However, there are few exceptions available against the principle of strict liability such as the escape being an
act of God, default on part of the person injured, and consent of the person injured.
The limitation of the principle of strict liability in the contemporary industrialized world has been categorically
highlighted by the Supreme Court more than once. In 1987, in the case more famously known as the Oleum
case, the Supreme Court evolved the principle of 'absolute liability'. It was held that "an enterprise which is
engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry which poses a potential threat to the health and safety
of the persons working in the factory and residing in the surrounding areas owes an absolute and non-delegable
duty to the community to ensure that no harm results to anyone on account of hazardous or inherently
dangerous nature of the activity which it has undertaken"
The Supreme Court expressly referred to the rule of 'strict liability' as laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher but
refuses to apply it stating that it is not suited to the emerging conditions in India. According to the Supreme
Court, in the act of an enterprise engaging in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity for its profit, the law
must presume that the permission given to the enterprise is conditional on the enterprise absorbing the cost of
any accident arising on account of such activity. In other words, the exceptions or defenses available to a
hazardous or inherently dangerous industry in cases of accidents were held unacceptable.

[Sujith Koonan & Harshita Singhal, Vizag Gas Leak Incident: A Case for Absolute Liability?
https://www.livelaw.in/columns/vizag-gas-leak-incident-a-case-for-absolute-liability-156745?infinitescroll=1]

1. Albert manages a company involved in the manufacturing of insecticides and pesticides. The plant uses a lot of
toxic fluids to produce the desired product. However, all the necessary and possible precautionary measures
have been taken. At one instance, due to lighting and thunderstorms, the fluids escape the plant and injured the
residents of nearby village. Decide the liability of the company.
(a) The company shall be not held strictly liable as they took all the preventive measures.
(b) The company shall not be held liable as it was due to lightning and thunderstorms.
(c) The company shall be held absolutely liable for all the consequences.
(d) The company shall be held liable as a dangerous thing existed which escaped and caused harm to others.

2. Guddu grows poisonous berries on his property. A storm takes place and scatters the berries to different places.
Yash gets attracted to those berries and eats them. After consuming those, he dies. Decide the liability of
Guddu?
(a) Guddu will be held liable as he was negligent.
(b) Guddu will be held liable as he was dealing with a dangerous thing.
(c) Guddu will not be liable as Yash came to the dangerous thing and there was no escape.
(d) Guddu will not be held liable as it was unprecedented and unforeseeable.

Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-9111555433|www.legaledge.in Page 1 of 8

3. Manoj owned an agricultural land. However, he was not able to yield good production from it due to low fertility
of the soil. He decides to set up a fire cracker factory on the property and employed a lot of workers from nearby
villages. At one instance, one of the workers started smoking beedi which led to a fire in the factory. This
caused a destruction of life and property of the nearby villages. Decide the liability of Manoj?
(a) Manoj will be liable as he was dealing with a dangerous thing.
(b) Manoj will not be liable as it was outcome of the carelessness of the worker.
(c) Manoj will not be liable as it was unprecedented and unforeseeable.
(d) Manoj will not be held liable as there existed an indirect and interfering act.

4. Recently, there has been a lot of disturbance caused by the Vizag gas leak incident. The gas named styrene
escaped the plant causing harm to the nearby villagers. There exists a dilemma as to whether strict liability or
absolute liability should be applied. Based on the information provided in the passage, Decide.
(a) The concept of strict liability is more applicable as they dealt with a dangerous thing.
(b) The concept of absolute liability is more applicable as it was an inherently dangerous activity.
(c) The concept of strict is more applicable as damage was caused to the individuals due the escape of the
dangerous gas.
(d) Both (a) and (c)

5. Pinto is a scientist who used to perform experiments using radioactive substances. He took all the adequate
precautions for himself and the others. There was a signboard outside preventing the entry of individuals on the
property. Hanoo, a thief, entered the house ignoring the warning and got injured. Decide.
(a) Pinto will be held strictly liable for keeping a dangerous thing.
(b) Pinto will be held strictly liable as this was foreseeable.
(c) Pinto will not be held strictly liable as the individual came to the dangerous thing.
(d) Pinto will be held absolutely liable as the radioactive substances are inherently dangerous in nature.

Passage (Q.6-Q.10): False imprisonment is restraining a person in a bounded area without justification or
consent. False imprisonment is a common law misdemeanor and a tort. It applies to private as well as
governmental detention. It is dealt with in the form of wrongful confinement in the Indian Penal Code under
1. 340. The Indian Penal Code deals with other matters related in this regard from
2. 339 to S. 348. When it comes to public police, the proving of false imprisonment is sufficient to obtain a writ
of Habeas Corpus.
For imprisonment, it is not necessary that the person should be put behind bars, but he should be confined in
such an area from where there are no possible ways of escape except the will of the person who is confining the
person within that area. It is not the degree of the imprisonment that matters but it is the absence of lawful
authority to justify unlawful confinement which is of relevance. The internment and non-movement of any
chattel, i.e., goods is also considered to be a part of the concept of false imprisonment.
False arrest is the arrest of the individual by the police officer or private person without lawful authority. False
arrest and false imprisonment are virtually indistinguishable except in their terminology and have been held by
the courts as a single tort. False imprisonment is an intentional tort, like those of assault, battery, unlawful
harassment and invasion of privacy. These are termed as torts of trespass to a person.
There are three remedies for false imprisonment, which include damages, habeas corpus and self -help. Being
a tort, the basic remedy for false imprisonment is an action for damages which can be due to physical or mental
suffering, loss of reputation or even malicious intent on behalf of the defendant. If a person is unlawfully
confined, then he can be released from such confinement by the Writ of Habeas Corpus. A person can also use
reasonable force in order to escape the confinement. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right of
personal liberty and thereby prohibits any inhuman, cruel or degrading treatments to any person whether he is a
national or foreigner. Any violation of this right attracts the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution which
enshrines right to equality and equal protection of law.

[Oyshee Gupta, Law of False Imprisonment in India https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/law-of-false-

imprisonment-in-india/]

6. Ganesh was acquitted in a case by the court of competent jurisdiction. After this, he was taken to the cell and
detained for 10 minutes to sought clarification on certain issues. This was done by the wardens. Aggrieved by
this behavior of the police officers, ganesh claims of false imprisonment. Decide.
(a) The claim is justified as this amounted to false imprisonment.
(b) The claim is not justified it was for a very brief period to fall under this category.
(c) The claim is not justified as the officers acted were performing their obligation.
(d) The claim is justified as this was done without the authority of the court.

Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-9111555433|www.legaledge.in Page 2 of 8

7. A public footway on the Lanson Bridge was wrongfully enclosed by Adam. Seats were put out and entry was
subject to payment for watching the rowing race. Zena wanted to use the footway but was denied. In
furtherance to the same, she climbed the fence of the enclosure but was still prohibited from going further. She
stayed there for some time and aggrieved by the situation, filed a suit for false imprisonment. Decide.
(a) The suit is maintainable as the enclosure restrained her right to move freely on a public footway.
(b) The suit is maintainable as the footway was wrongfully enclosed.
(c) The suit is not maintainable as there was no total restraint.
(d) Both (a) and (b)

8. Anjali was an employee of the Pinto Corporation who was suspected of stealing the property of company. She
was called in the company’s conference room and was asked to stay there for the purpose of investigation of
the stolen property. One or two of the staff members were made to stay outside the room in which she was
sitting. In the meantime, the police was called and Anjali was arrested on the charges of theft. Later, she was
acquitted but filed a case against the corporation for false imprisonment. Decide.
(a) Anjali will win as this confinement was wrongful thus would amount to false imprisonment.
(b) Anjali will lose as it was justified in taking into consideration the prevalent circumstances.
(c) Anjali will lose as it just for the purpose of investigation.
(d) Anjali will win but not under false imprisonment.

9. Based on the factual information in the aforementioned question, decide the maintainability of the suit filed by
Anjali against the police officers for false imprisonment?
(a) The suit will be maintainable as there was a wrongful confinement by the police.
(b) The suit will be maintainable as it lacked consent.
(c) The suit will not be maintainable as it was for the purpose of investigation.
(d) The suit will not be maintainable as there was no total restraint.

10. Z enters the wharf of D to cross the river by using one of the ferry boats of D. After entering, Z comes to know
that there are no boats available so he decides to go out of the wharf. However, Z had to pay a penny for the
exit which he refused to do so. The payment details were mentioned on the notice board at the entrance stating
one penny has to be paid at entry and one at exit. In furtherance to the same, D disallowed him to leave the
wharf unless the payment is made. Z claims false imprisonment. Decide.
(a) The claim is justified as there was a total restraint.
(b) The claim is not justified as the charges were reasonable and it was justified to do so with a reason.
(c) The claim is justified as it was wrongful and against the consent of Z.
(d) The claim is not justified as the rule was mentioned at the entrance.

Passage (Q.11-Q.15): The law of torts is a collection of all the circumstances in which court gives a remedy by
way of damages, for legally unjustified harm or injury done by one to another person. There are three elements
which need to be proved before constituting a tort:-
1. There must be an act or omission on the part of the defendant.
2. That act or omission should be in violation of a legal right vested in the plaintiff.
3. The wrongful act or omission thus done by the defendant is of such a nature to give rise to a legal remedy.
Both the maxims are divided into three parts as follows:-
• Damnum/Damno means substantial harm, loss or damage with respect to the money, health, etc.
• Injuria means an infringement of a right given by the law to the plaintiff.
• Sine means without.
These maxims fall under the category of qualified rights, & in the cases of qualified rights there is no
presumption of damages and the violation of such rights is actionable only on the proof of damages.
Damnum sine Injuria is a legal maxim which refers to as damages without injury or damages in which there is
no infringement of any legal right which are vested with the plaintiff. Since no legal right has been infringed so
no action lies in the cases of damnum sine injuria. The general principle on which this maxim is based upon is
that if one exercises his common or ordinary rights, within reasonable limits, and without infringing other’s legal
right; such an exercise does not give rise to an action in tort in favour of that other person. On the other hand,
Injuria sine damno is a violation of a legal right without causing any harm, loss or damage to the plaintiff and
whenever any legal right is infringed, the person in whom the right is vested is entitled to bring an action. Every
person has an absolute right to his property, to the immunity of his person, and to his liberty & infringement of
this right is actionable per se. The law even gives the liberty that if a person merely has a threat of infringement
of a legal right even without the injury being completed, the person whose right has been threatened can bring a
suit under the provisions of Specific Relief Act under Declaration and injunction.

[Subodh Asthana, Damnum Sine Injuria and Injuria Sine Damnum: All you must know
https://blog.ipleaders.in/damnum-injuria/]
Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-9111555433|www.legaledge.in Page 3 of 8
11. Vibhor, a trader, bought goods of worth Rs. 10 lakh from Mishra & co. He gave the company a postdated
cheque of Rs. 6 lakh and paid Rs. 4 lakh in cash. Mishra & co. puts the cheque in the due to date to get
reimbursed but the same is dishonoured due to the negligence of the bank in spite of sufficient funds in the
account of Vibhor. He decides to file a suit against the bank. Decide.
(a) The suit is not maintainable as the cheque is dishonoured due to the negligence of the employee and not
the bank.
(b) The suit is not maintainable as such errors are reasonable and trivial in nature.
(c) The suit is maintainable as in spite of sufficient funds the cheque was dishonoured.
(d) The suit is maintainable as it has affected the goodwill of Vibhor.

12. Bhanumati carried on her business of Sweets in a shop which had a board displaying the materials to the
persons in which she dealt. Meera while exercising the statutory powers erected a network tower which
obstructed the view of the shop to a large extent. Bhanumati asked to shift it to a different place as it impacted
the business but Meera refused. Now, Bhanumati seeks to get an injunction for the same. Decide.
(a) Bhanumati will succeed as the obstruction amounts to violation of legal right.
(b) Bhanumati will succeed as it was not legal to erect the mobile tower at that place.
(c) Bhanumati will not succeed as the obstruction does not amount to violation of legal right.
(d) Bhanumati will not succeed as the act was done while exercising statutory powers.

13. There were six famous ship-owners who were in business of shipping raw silk from one port to another. They
decided a form a cartel to grab the market and drive their rival trader out of the competition. They did this by
offering special deals and terms to the customers who deal with them to the exclusion of the rival trader. Decide.
(a) They are not liable as they possess the freedom to form cartel.
(b) They are not liable as the exclusion does not cause legal injury.
(c) They are liable as their cartelisation is affecting the rival trader’s right to trade.
(d) They are liable but such practices shall be punishable under competition law.

14. Dinesh is an officer who without a lawful justification denied registering the vote of Ambika who was a qualified
voter. However, the candidate who Ambika wanted to cast the vote had won the elections with a huge margin.
Thus, there was no damage in spite of lack of registration of the vote. However, Ambika decided to file a claim
against the action of the officer. Decide.
(a) The claim is not justified as there was no damage.
(b) The claim is not justified as it is trivial in nature to be taken to the court.
(c) The claim is justified as the legal right was infringed.
(d) The claim is justified as Ambika suffered a loss due to non-registration of the vote.

15. There exists a very old and famous Hanuman temple in the city of Jaipur. The individuals taking care of the
temple had the right to get the food offered to the idol. Rajesh was under an obligation to the idol to offer food.
When he failed to do so, the caretakers of the idol brought a suit against him. Decide.
(a) The suit is maintainable as it violates the legal rights of the caretakers of the temple.
(b) The suit is maintainable as Rajesh failed to perform his duty which caused loss to the caretakers.
(c) The suit is not maintainable as no one suffered loss due to the omission by Rajesh.
(d) The suit is not maintainable as no one sustained any legal repercussions out of non performance of the duty
of Rajesh.

Passage (Q.16-Q.21): Generally, a person is liable for his own wrongful acts and one does not incur any liability
for the acts done by others. In certain cases, however, vicarious liability, that is the liability of one person for the
act of another person, may arise. The reason for vicarious liability is that the master has the ‘deepest pockets’.
Thus, the constituents of vicarious liability are: (1) there must be a relationship of a certain kind. (2) The
wrongful act must be related to the relationship in a certain way. (3) the wrong has been done within the course
of employment.
A servant and independent contractor are both employed to do some work of the employer but there is a
difference in the legal relationship which the employer has with them. A servant is engaged under a contract of
services whereas an independent contractor is engaged under a contract for services. The distinction is based
on the level of control that a master has over the working of the specific person. The liability of the employer for
the wrongs committed by his servant is more onerous than his liability in respect of wrongs committed by an
independent contractor. If a servant does a wrongful act in the course of his employment, the master is liable for
it. The servant, of course, is also liable. The wrongful act of the servant is deemed to be the act of the master as
well. Since for the wrong done by the servant, the master can also be made liable vicariously, the plaintiff has a
choice to bring an action against either or both of them. Their liability is joint and several as they are considered
to be joint tortfeasors. The reason for the maxim respondeat superior seems to be the better position of the
master to meet the claim because of his larger pocket and also ability to pass on the burden of liability through

Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-9111555433|www.legaledge.in Page 4 of 8

 insurance. The liability arises even though the servant acted against the express instruction, and for no benefit
of his master
For the liability of the master to arise, the following two essentials are to be present:
(1) The tort was committed by the servant.
(2) The servant committed the tort in the course of his employment.
[Source: http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1634/Vicarious-Liability-in-India.html]

16. Ram is a driver. He often helps his neighbor and drops him off at places if he’s going on the same way. One day
when Ram was driving along with his neighbor, Ram hit and broke a bicycle. The owner of the bicycle claims
damages from neighbor as he seemed to have more money than Ram did. Decide
(a) The owner can ask the neighbour for money for the neighbour has deeper pockets
(b) The owner cannot ask the neighbour for money for the neighbour was merely taking a lift
(c) The owner can ask the neighbour for money for accident occurred when he was sitting in Ram’s car
(d) The owner cannot ask the neighbour for money as there’s no relationship between Ram and his neighbour.

17. Please refer to the facts above. Happy with Ram’s help, his neighbor decided to give him some money at the
end of every month for his services. Ram used to accept the same. One day when Ram was driving along with
his neighbor, Ram hit and broke a bicycle. The owner of the bicycle claims damages from neighbor as he
seemed to have more money than Ram did. Decide
(a) The owner can ask the neighbor for money for the neighbor has deeper pockets
(b) The owner cannot ask the neighbor for money as there’s no relationship between Ram and his neighbor.
(c) The owner can ask the neighbor for money for accident occurred when he was sitting in Ram’s car
(d) The owner cannot ask the neighbor for money for the neighbor was merely taking a lift

18. Harsh is employed as a carpenter with his neighbor. However, Harsh used to only work with his neighbor for
specific hours in a day and used to work private for the rest of the day. During one such private work, Harsh
injured a cat which was lying on his work table. The owner of the cat claimed medical expenses.
(a) The owner can ask the neighbor for money for the neighbor has deeper pockets
(b) The owner cannot ask the neighbor for money as there’s no relationship between Harsh and his neighbor.
(c) The owner can ask the neighbor for money as there exists a employer-employee relationship
(d) The owner cannot ask the neighbor for money for accident did not occur during the course of employment.

19. Please refer to the facts above. Harsh being a carpenter went to the market taking his neighbor along with him.
When his neighbor was looking at handicrafts in a shop, Harsh went to see some handicrafts too. Accidentally,
Harsh broke one very valuable statute of Lord Buddha. The owner claims damages from the neighbor.
(a) The owner can ask the neighbor for money as there exists a employer-employee relationship
(b) The owner can ask the neighbor for money for the neighbor has deeper pockets
(c) The owner cannot ask the neighbor for money as the wrongful act is not related to the relationship
(d) The owner cannot ask the neighbor for money as he would not be justified.

20. Vaid is a part time plumber. His neighbor asks him to come repair his faucets on one day. Vaid brings his tools,
repairs the faucets according to the neighbor’s desire and charges for the entire day. Decide
(a) Vaid has entered into a contract of service and is a servant
(b) Vaid has entered into a contract for service and is an independent contractor
(c) Vaid has entered into a contract for service and is a servant
(d) Vaid has entered into a contract of service and is an independent contractor

21. Akhil is employed by Shambhavi for helping her out with domestic chores. Shambhavi’s friend once gave her a
silk saree to wear which she was supposed to wash and return. She instructed Akhil to not wash the saree in
cold water as it would wrinkle. Akhil however washed the saree in cold water and the saree got damaged.
Shambhavi’s friend sued Shambhavi for damages.
(a) Shambhavi is liable to pay damages as there is a master-servant relationship and this was done in the
course of employment
(b) Shambhavi is not liable to pay damages as she had expressly instructed Akhil to not use cold water
(c) Shambhavi is liable to pay damages as she has deeper pockets
(d) Shambhavi is not liable to pay damages for Akhil’s acts.

Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-9111555433|www.legaledge.in Page 5 of 8

 Passage (Q.22-Q.27): Medical Negligence basically is the misconduct by a medical practitioner or doctor by not
providing enough care resulting in breach of their duties and harming the patients which are their consumers. A
professional is deemed to be an expert in that field at least; a patient getting treated under any doctor surely
expects to get healed and at least expects the doctor to be careful while performing his duties. Medical
negligence
Medical negligence also known as medical malpractice is improper, unskilled, or negligent treatment of a patient
by a physician, dentist, pharmacist, or other health care professional. Medical malpractice occurs when a
health-care provider strays from the recognized “standard of care” in the treatment of a patient. The “standard of
care” is defined as what a reasonably prudent medical provider would or would not have done under the same
or similar circumstances. “The important question isn’t how to keep bad physicians from harming patient; it’s
how to keep good physicians from harming patients.” Mistakes or Negligence in medical profession may lead to
minor injuries or some serious kinds of injuries and sometimes these kinds of mistakes may even cause death.
Since no man is perfect in this world, it is evident that a person who is skilled and has knowledge over a
particular subject can also commit mistakes during his practice. Too err is human but to replicate the same
mistake due to one’s carelessness is negligence. The fundamental reason behind medical error or medical
negligence is the carelessness of the said doctors or medical professionals it can be observed in various cases
where reasonable care is not taken during the diagnosis, during operations, sometimes while injecting
anaesthesia etc

22. The defendant (committee) was the body who employed a doctor who (as per common practice) had not given
a mentally-ill patient (the claimant, Mr Charuwala) muscle-relaxant drugs nor restrained them prior to giving
them electro-convulsive therapy. Mr Charuwala was a voluntary patient at Swasth Hospital, a mental health
institution run by the Swasth Hospital Management Committee. He voluntary agreed to undergo electro-
convulsive therapy. He was not given any muscle relaxant, and his body was not restrained during the
procedure. He flailed about violently before the procedure was stopped, and he suffered some serious injuries,
including fractures of the acetabula. He sued the defendant (committee) for the compensation. He argued they
were negligent for: not issuing relaxants, not restraining him and not warning him about the risks involved.
Defendants in the court argues that it is a it was the common practice of the profession to not warn patients of
the risk of treatment (when it is small) unless they are asked. Considering all the arguments given by both the
sides are true, decide the matter.
(a) Claimant will win, as the defendant were at the fault by not warning the claimant. Also, it is reasonable for
doctors to tell patient everything about the surgery. This was not done in this case.
(b) Claimant will not win. The defendant did nothing wrong by not warning claimant about the therapy. Also,
given the common practice, it is not reasonable for doctors to tell patient everything about the surgery.
(c) Claimant will win. Defendants were at fault by not informing defendant about surgery. It is established
practiced in medical field to inform everything about treatment to patient, before taking their consent. Here,
although claimant voluntary agreed for therapy, he didn’t have full information.
(d) Claimant will not win. Before therapy, claimant was asked, and he gave consent about the same and thus
now he can’t blame defendant or doctor for it.

23. The XYZ hospital, initially acting through an inexperienced junior doctor, negligently administered excessive
oxygen during the post-natal care of a premature child, son of Mr and Mrs Chawda, who subsequently became
blind. Excessive oxygen was, according to the medical evidence, one of five possible factors that could have led
to blindness. Trial court ruled that on the "balance of probabilities" test, the hospital would not be liable, since it
was more likely that one of the alternate risks had caused the injury. The High court applied the "material
increase of risk" test, first espoused in A v. B. The Court found that since the hospital breached its duty and thus
increased the risk of harm, and that the plaintiff's injury fell within the ambit of that risk, the hospital was liable
despite the fact the plaintiff had not proved the hospital's negligence had caused his injury. Hospital appealed in
Supreme court, arguing there is no proof that excessive oxygen caused the blindness to the child. Decide the
matter.
(a) Hospital will win as Mr and Mrs Chawda were not able to proof that blindness of their son is caused
because of excessive oxygen.
(b) Hospital will not win as Mr and Mrs Chawda son got blind after receiving excessive oxygen, which according
to medical science is a factor of causing blindness.
(c) Hospital will win. The standard of care taken by the hospital and staff was of reasonable amount and thus
hospital will not be liable for medical negligence.
(d) Hospital will not win. The standard of care taken by the hospital and staff was not of reasonable amount and
thus hospital will be liable for medical negligence.

Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-9111555433|www.legaledge.in Page 6 of 8

24. Robin’s husband, Barney dies of arsenic poisoning. After coming from work on 8th August, Barney complained
of pain to his wife, Robin. He further felt sick and went to Sanjeev hospital. He told the nurse that he was feeling
uneasy since he drank tea at work place on that afternoon. As the doctor was not available in the hospital, he
was seen by a nurse, Sanjeevni, who telephoned the Dr. Sanjeev, the doctor on duty. The doctor told her to
send Barney home and contact him in the morning. Mr Barney died five hours later from arsenic poisoning.
Although it was revealed later on that had the doctor examined Mr Barney at the time there would have been
nothing the doctor could have done to save him. Nevertheless, Robin sued the hospital for medical negligence.
(a) Hospital will win. The standard of care taken by the hospital and staff was of reasonable amount and thus
hospital will not be liable for medical negligence.
(b) Hospital will not win. The standard of care taken by the hospital and staff was not of reasonable amount and
thus hospital will be liable for medical negligence.
(c) Hospital will not win. Considering the fact that doctor was not available in the hospital, when indeed it was
his duty and gave instructions to nurse over phone shows that the doctor is negligent in his services.
(d) Hospital will win. Had the doctor examined Barney, it would not have made any difference thus he would not
be liable for not presenting on his duty.

25. The plaintiff, Kent Arrow, was pregnant and had asthma. Her husband Mr. Dharmendra called Malini Hospital
and requested an ambulance to take the plaintiff to hospital. The ambulance took 38 minutes to arrive. As a
result, the plaintiff suffered a respiratory arrest with grave consequences – substantial memory impairment,
personality change and miscarriage. Kent brought and action against the Malini hospital alleging negligence in
failing to respond promptly and continuously give her oxygen in the ambulance. Kent argued that first
ambulance came late and second it was not equipped properly with all the instruments and thus fail to provide
her oxygen. Because of all this she suffers great injuries along with mental trauma. She and her husband, Mr.
Dharmendra brought an action against. Malini hospital argued that the ambulance got late because of traffic and
it was not able to provide oxygen because Hospital assume that patient will come on time and she will not need
oxygen in ambulance. Decide the matter.
(a) Hospital will win. The standard of care taken by the hospital and staff was of reasonable amount and thus
hospital will not be liable for medical negligence.
(b) Hospital will not win. The standard of care taken by the hospital and staff was not of reasonable amount and
thus hospital will be liable for medical negligence.
(c) Hospital sent ambulance on time. They made a reasonable assumption that given ambulance is sent on
time to Kent’s house, she will be able to came to hospital on time and thus will not need any additional
services in ambulance. Hospital did not commit negligence.
(d) None of these.

26. The claimant was a young boy, Jack, who sustained various injuries after falling from a tall tree, including a
fractured hip. He was taken to receive medical treatment at the local hospital where the doctors failed to identify
his fractured hip, and he was subsequently allowed to leave. Five days later, the boy returned to the hospital in
significant pain, at which point his injury was subsequently realised. Despite receiving treatment, it was
determined that he had suffered from a muscular condition (avascular necrosis) which left the boy with a
permanent disability and further left a strong probability that he would develop severe osteoarthritis later in life.
The submission of expert medical testimony indicated that had his fractured hip been identified on his initial
hospital visit, there was a 25% chance of his condition having been successfully treated (and thus a 75%
chance it would have made no difference). Decide the matter.
(a) Claimant will win. The hospital was negligent and did not take reasonable standard of care which further
resulted in harm to the claimant.
(b) Claimant will not win. Although hospital was negligent and did not take reasonable standard of care, the
harm to the claimant is not a result of this negligence as major harm inflicted was not due to this negligence
of hospital.
(c) Claimant will win. Medical testimony proves that if Jack’s disease had identified earlier, there were chances
of saving him from all the pain.
(d) Claimant will not win. Hospital was not negligent. Hospital committed a reasonable mistake after exercising
due care.

Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-9111555433|www.legaledge.in Page 7 of 8

27. Subindere Rao, an officer in malaria department filed a complaint against the hospital for negligent conduct in
treating his wife, Rubindera. Rubindera was feeling unwell since past two days and decided to visit hospital. In
hospital, doctors conducted various test on her and concluded that she had typhoid. However, later it came to
know that she was wrongly treated for typhoid fever instead of malaria fever, due to the wrong medication
provided by the hospital. Because of wrong medication, her condition worsened and was admitted into ICU.
Claimant argued that doctor was negligent while conducting the test, whereas doctor argued that the test was
conducted properly, however Rubindera files got exchange mistakenly by nurse with another patient. Decide the
matter.
(a) The nurse will be liable. The nurse was negligent and did not take reasonable amount of care which further
resulted in harm to the claimant.
(b) The doctor will be liable. The doctor was negligent and did not take reasonable amount of care which further
resulted in harm to the claimant. The principle of vicarious liability will apply.
(c) The hospital will be liable. The hospital was negligent and did not take reasonable amount of care which
further resulted in harm to the claimant. The principle of vicarious liability will apply.
(d) None of these.

Head Office: 127, Zone II, MP Nagar, Bhopal |+91-9111555433|www.legaledge.in Page 8 of 8