don't just crack CLAT, come hack CLAT with us.

1. Unlawful interference with the possession of land without lawful justification amounts to TRESPASS.
2. Unreasonable interference by the defendant in another's domain is NUISANCE.
3. When a 'dangerous thing' is brought by the defendant, the defendant is strictly liable for torts committed by the thing.

Little Fundoo likes to do funny things and is a menace in his locality, Mr. Wilson hates him.
People know li'l Fundoo can prove to be very dangerous if left on his own. He breaks windows, ties dog's tails with ropes, steals fruits from neighbour's trees etc.

One day a large group in his locality along with his father plans for an outing to a picnic spot, and visit the newly renovated Galipore National Zoo.
After the picnic they visited the Zoo.. There was the long Giraffe, monkeys and various other newly bought creatures..

Fundoo was such a naughty fellow he disturbed all of the animals, the Giraffe ran away hearing him blow the trumpet, the monkeys became fidgety and started screeching loudly, he also disturbs a RBTiger..
All hell broke lose when he takes a stone chip and aims it at a sleeping brown bear and wakes it up..

The bear enraged by being disturbed in sleep wakes up and with it's powerful spring brings down the iron fence and attacks Fundoo, escapes and attacks three more people among the picnickers.

The representatives of the three injured, and Fundoo seek legal compensation and bring a suit against the Govt. zoo.


1) Who is going to be ultimately liable for the hospital expenses of the 4 injured?
2) Is it possible to frame the parents of Fundoo somehow?
3) Fundoo suffers injuries will Govt. compensate those too?
4) Who'll be responsible if the bear goes on a rampage kills a man and injure many other people?

Here the confusion regarding Q1 is:
The iron fence was reasonably strong and was approved earlier by Govt. authorities, the enraged bear shakes the fence violently and brings it down, due to utter vengeance towards human also injures the visitors, which normally bears don't.

Now a defence from the zoo authority:
The complaint brought against us by the plaintiff is purely baseless.
The Zoo authority of India earlier approved our fencing system after the Renovation. The bear was enraged by the misconduct of the injured.
And if at all we are liable the injured should also be liable as they have performed contributory negligence and misconducted later in the situation.
And we Galipore national Zoo are not liable for the damages to the miscreant and his friends.

Views: 493


You need to be a member of CLAThacker to add comments!

Join CLAThacker

Comment by Amit Kumar Bhattacharyya on August 22, 2011 at 9:05am
I don't think Fundoo is covered under strict liability. While the other three are definitely in a position to claim compensation from the zoo authorities, Fundoo was conducting nuisance in the first place and hence he should be responsible for his own actions. Note that the authorities are strictly and not absolutely liable.
Comment by Nilanjan on January 8, 2011 at 8:39pm

Okay, now firstly, it is not very clear that  whether the fencing done put by the zoo authorities was suitable or not.This is because at times even the government can be wrong and negligent in it's activities.

Besides, when a fencing  is put up in a zoo,it is done by keeping in mind the potentiality of threat arising out of the respective animal.In telling  so, what I mean is that, the fencing for a brown bear and a deer will not be the same.So, when you are keeping an animal like  a brown bear in a zoo(which is qite famouse for it's violent activitie),preparations are made by keeping in mind the fact that, even under unforeseen circumstances, if the bear goes out of control and starts acting violently, the precautions taking would be enough to tackle.So, when it comes to the zoo autoritities being liable they are so.

Secondly, when it comes to framing the parents of fundoo, they can be only fined for it(as their son was responsible for disturbing the animals ,which he was not supposed to do, thus, he had gone against the laws of the zoo,which is goveren by a statue), because in this case, it has been assumed that fundoo is a minor and such acts of mischief are pretty normal.

It is the zoological autorities who will have to pay for the damages incurred by the victims.

Comment by Apoorva Sharma on December 10, 2010 at 10:34am

I had deleted ,my previous account so all my posts also vanished.

Comment by Donnie Ashok on December 2, 2010 at 8:04pm
What happened Apoorva removed her last comment??
Comment by Donnie Ashok on November 26, 2010 at 2:38pm
:D Guys @Mayank and @Apoorva..

If I and the Zoo party (includes Mayank) has lost this case that's completely because A lawyer such as Ramanuj Sir is also present in the court room.. And all the logical basis contributed by Sir is not at all disagreeable..

My penultimate comment is not at all disagreeable. If it is THEN I'LL SUBMIT MY LOSS TO Apoorva..

Moreover, the bet of Apoorva was "BUT here only ZOO AUTHORIYT is liable, main bet lagane ko tairyar hoon"..
Therefore I think.. bl bla bla bla.. But Mayank didn't lose :)

We had a point that Fundoo should be responsible for something, and here he is..
Comment by Mayank on November 26, 2010 at 1:04pm
I am just replying back. Anyways Let end it here.
Comment by Mayank on November 25, 2010 at 9:46pm
Apauroova...I will be in CLAT or not it will be ok for me.But if by mistaken you get admission in any law school,i am sure that school faculty is going to kill themself that to whom they have given admission. So funny it will be :)
By the way do you assume yourself as judge that sometime you say to someone law is not your cup of tea and sometime say no you are not goin to select in CLAT. whats your matter..Be mature..Childish....
by the in real you dnt how to apply side sir,principal & everyone saying its strict liability and other side you keep telling your Ramayan that it is absolute..
And stop comment on me...ok.....
Comment by riS.aXe.Han on November 25, 2010 at 6:35pm
guys,please don't fight,just chill & as for money u can always send it to me,i'll gladly accept it

Comment by Aadhya on November 25, 2010 at 12:23pm
my god! guys... are you seriously "fighting" ?? i cant believe this.... u guys are behaving as u know everything!
chill guys... v hv not even got into law skuls na.. infact v r still in the learning process.
b open to learn.. n accepting ur mistakes is not going to degrade you at all.. stop this u lose i win thing.. say that u both won bcoz u improved ur reasoning skills by discussing this thread for so long :)
Comment by Mayank on November 25, 2010 at 12:12pm
Apoorva Dnt send your money...i will not accept it. But do one thing ACCEPT you lose. :)

Have Your Doubts Cleared!

It is never good to have doubts in your mind! Just ask a questions and the super intelligent CLAThackers, many of whom are writing CLAT this time and others who have cleared it already will answer your questions!

If you have doubts on logical reasoning or critical reasoning, ask here.

Legal reasoning doubts are answered on this thread!

Want to ask a GK question? try this thread!



  • Add Photos
  • View All

Do you like CLAThacker?

© 2019   Created by Ramanuj Mukherjee.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service