1
Question
Match List-I with List-II and select the correct answer using the codes given the Lists.
List-I List-II (a) Bird Vs. Jones 1. False imprisonment (b) Merry weather Vs. Nixon 2. Malicious prosecution (c) Six carpenters case 3. Trespass (d) Abrath Vs. South Eastern Railway Company 4. Joint tort feasors
Match List-I with List-II and select the correct answer using the codes given the Lists.
| List-I | List-II |
| (a) Bird Vs. Jones | 1. False imprisonment |
| (b) Merry weather Vs. Nixon | 2. Malicious prosecution |
| (c) Six carpenters case | 3. Trespass |
| (d) Abrath Vs. South Eastern Railway Company | 4. Joint tort feasors |
Open in App
Solution
The correct option is A (a)-1, (b)-4, (c)-3, (d)-2
(1) In the case of Bird v Jones the plaintiff was prevented from passing a particular part of public road by two policemen due to an ongoing boat race. He was asked to use another way which he refused to use and sued for false imprisonment. The Court negated the case of false imprisonment and concluded that a prison must have some boundary whether real or imaginary. In this case, the plaintiff was allowed to use another road so there was boundary within which he was confined.(2) In the case of Merry Weather v Nixon a person who was owner of a mill sued both the plaintiff and defendant for causing harm to the reversionary estate of his mill. He recovered the entire amount of compensation from the plaintiff. The plaintiff later sued the defendant for recovering a portion of the compensation but he was not allowed to do so. The case established a new rule that one wrongdoer cannot seek contribution from the other wrongdoer against compensation for a joint tortious liability. This applies even if one party is compelled to bear the entire damages. This is because sharing of contribution requires a contract between the tortfeasors and such a contract is itself illegal. (3) In the Six carpenters case six carpenters were given bread and wine from a tavern against a certain charge. One of the carpenters asked for an additional wine and bread but ll of them refused to pay for this additional wine and bread. The tavern keeper sued them for trespass. It was held that trespass occurs either when a person enters illegally or uses an authorization given by law to enter in an illegal manner. But it does not apply when the authorization or license to enter is given by the party himself.(4) In the case of Abrath v South Eastern Railway Company, the plaintiff had brought an action of malicious prosecution against a company. The Court of Appeal held that an essential element of tort of malicious prosecution is that the action has been initiated without any reasonable or probable cause. A fictitious person like a company cannot have any malice even if some wrongful acts are approved by Board of Directors or shareholders in a meeting.
(1) In the case of Bird v Jones the plaintiff was prevented from passing a particular part of public road by two policemen due to an ongoing boat race. He was asked to use another way which he refused to use and sued for false imprisonment. The Court negated the case of false imprisonment and concluded that a prison must have some boundary whether real or imaginary. In this case, the plaintiff was allowed to use another road so there was boundary within which he was confined.
(2) In the case of Merry Weather v Nixon a person who was owner of a mill sued both the plaintiff and defendant for causing harm to the reversionary estate of his mill. He recovered the entire amount of compensation from the plaintiff. The plaintiff later sued the defendant for recovering a portion of the compensation but he was not allowed to do so. The case established a new rule that one wrongdoer cannot seek contribution from the other wrongdoer against compensation for a joint tortious liability. This applies even if one party is compelled to bear the entire damages. This is because sharing of contribution requires a contract between the tortfeasors and such a contract is itself illegal.
(3) In the Six carpenters case six carpenters were given bread and wine from a tavern against a certain charge. One of the carpenters asked for an additional wine and bread but ll of them refused to pay for this additional wine and bread. The tavern keeper sued them for trespass. It was held that trespass occurs either when a person enters illegally or uses an authorization given by law to enter in an illegal manner. But it does not apply when the authorization or license to enter is given by the party himself.
(4) In the case of Abrath v South Eastern Railway Company, the plaintiff had brought an action of malicious prosecution against a company. The Court of Appeal held that an essential element of tort of malicious prosecution is that the action has been initiated without any reasonable or probable cause. A fictitious person like a company cannot have any malice even if some wrongful acts are approved by Board of Directors or shareholders in a meeting.
Suggest Corrections
0
