Valkatamma was suffering from a health condition in her stomach which required her to go through a surgery that involved cutting her stomach open as per the advice of her doctor, Dr Chembunarayan. Though the operation was successful, after a few weeks, she started suffering from an infection which was a result of her stomach being cut open for the surgery though all the reasonable precautions to avoid any such infection had been taken by the group of surgeons who operated upon her. She visited another doctor, Dr Kuttalalingam, after the development of this infection, and he told her that even a laser surgery could have cured her stomach ailment without exposing her to the risk of infection. However, as a matter of fact, there were many doctors in the country who supported the advice given by Dr Chembunarayan to cure her health condition, and there were many others who were of the same opinion as that of Dr Kuttalalingam. Nevertheless, Valkatamma sued Dr Chembunarayan. Decide.
Principle: A person is liable for the tort of negligence if he breaches a legal duty of care he owes to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff suffered a damage resulting from this breach.
A.
Dr Chembunarayan will win because he had followed an accepted and established medical procedure. Moreover, reasonable precautions had been taken during the surgeryThe Government imposed a cap on the number of text messages sent per day, from every sim card, to 20, with immediate effect. These restrictions are to remain in force for 15 days. This action was taken against the backdrop of the exodus of north-eastern people from major cities of the country following a tide of rumours spread by text and multimedia messages that people hailing from the north-eastern states would be attacked to avenge a recent ethnic violence in one of the north-eastern states. Companies that were completely dependent upon this mode of communication for customer outreach protested against this cap on messages saying that it was infringing upon their freedom of speech and expression. Decide if it is an infringement on the freedom of speech and expression of the citizens.
Principle: All citizens shall have the right
(i) to freedom of speech and expression;
(ii) to assemble peacefully and without arms;
(iii) to form associations or unions;
(iv) to move freely throughout the territory of India;
(v) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; and
(vi) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
However, the exercise of these rights is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the State.
Nitin started to drive his Tata Nano in the highway after gulping down two bottles of whiskey. Isaac was driving his Reva NXR with the headlights turned off. They collided resulting in an injury on Isaac’s head. Nitin, who was highly intoxicated, had only a narrow chance to avoid the collision, but because of the high levels of alcohol in his blood, he was unable to do so. Isaac sued Nitin for negligence. Will he succeed?
Principle: A person is liable for the tort of negligence if he breaches a legal duty of care he owes to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff suffered a damage resulting from this breach.
Ranveer, a con-man by profession, was sitting in his lawn with some stolen books by William Shakespeare. Suddenly, his neighbour, Anushka, entered and tried to snatch away those books from him saying that they belong to her. As it turns out, she was right. Still, Ranveer sues Anushka for trespass to goods. Will he succeed?
Principle: Interference with someone’s possession or enjoyment of movable property constitutes the tort of trespass of goods.
During the Freshers’ Party of Beliaghata Law College, Saanchi pulled Aurobind’s shots. Aurobind started crying because his shots had been snatched away and decided to sue Saanchi for battery. Will Aurobind succeed in his claim?
Principle: The intentional use of force against another person without lawful justification constitutes the tort of battery.