Principle: A right of action cannot arise out of an illegal activity.
Facts: A and B were thieves engaged in stealing cars and other vehicles. Once they stole a car; and while driving off, they had to cross a city. They engaged a driver to drive them through the city, since they did not know the route inside. The indicator lamp of the car was not working and the thieves had not realized this and therefore, had not told about it to the driver. While driving, through the city, the car was hit by another vehicle because of the faulty indicator. In the accident, the driver was injured and he filed a suit against A and B.

The driver would lose, because he was driving a stolen car.

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

The driver would win because he was not a party to the stealing.

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

The driver would win because he did not know anything about the stealing.

Right on! Give the BNAT exam to get a 100% scholarship for BYJUS courses

None of the above

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

Open in App

Solution

The correct option is C The driver would win because he did not know anything about the stealing.
A and B were involved in the act of stealing the car. The driver they hired was not involved in the act of stealing the car. Moreover the driver was also not aware of the fact that the car was stolen and had a broken indicator lamp. So the driver can file a suit against A and B as he had not done anything illegal. If the driver, was involved in the act of stealing the car, then he could not file a suit for compensation.

Suggest Corrections

Similar questions

Q. Legal Principle: A right to action cannot arise out of an illegal activity.
Factual Situation: A and B were thieves engaged in stealing cars and other vehicles. Once they stole a car; and while driving off. they had to cross a city/ They engaged a driver to drive them through the city, since they did not know the route inside. The indicator lamp of the car was not working and the thieves did not realize this, and therefore, had not told about it to the driver. While driving, through the city, the car was hit by another vehicle because of the faulty indicator. In the accident, the driver was injured and he filed a suit against A and B.

Q. LEGAL PRINCIPLE: A right to action cannot arise out of an illegal activity.
FACTS: A and B were thieves engaged in stealing, cars and other vehicles. Once they stole a car. They engaged a driver to drive them through the city, since they did not know the route inside. The indicator lamp of the car was not working and the thieves had not realised this and , therefore, he had not told about it to the driver. While driving, through the city, the car was hit by another vehicle because of the faulty indicator. In the accident, the driver was injured and he filed a suit against A and B.
DECIDE.

Q. Given below are Legal Principles followed by a Factual Situation. Apply the principles followed by a factual Situation. Apply the principle to it and select the most appropriate answer for question among the four choices given.

LEGAL PRINCIPLE: A right of action cannot arise out of an illegal activity.

FACTUAL SITUATION: A and B were thieves engaged in stealing cars and other vehicles. One day they stole a car and while driving through a city, they engaged a driver to drive them through the city, as they did not know the route inside the city. As the indicator lamp of the car was not working and the thieves were unaware of this, they did not tell about it to the driver due to which another car belonging to X was damaged and his driver suffered injuries. X and his driver filed a suit for damages against A and B.
DECIDE:

Q. A traffic policeman sounds a whistle to stop a car-driver approaching towards him. The car-driver does not stop and takes the plea in court that because of the Doppler shift, the frequency of the whistle reaching him might have gone beyond the audible limit of 25 kHz and he did not hear it. Experiments showed that the whistle emits a sound with frequency closed to 16 kHz. Assuming that the claim of the driver is true, how fast was he driving the car? Take the speed of sound in air to be 330 m s⁻¹. Is this speed practical with today's technology?

A traffic policeman sounds a whistle to stop a car-driver approaching towards him. The car-driver does not stop and takes the plea in court that because of the Doppler shift, the frequency of the whistle reaching him might have gone beyond the audible limit of 20 kHz and he did not hear it, Experiments showed that the whistle emits a sound with frequency close to 16 kHz. Assuming that the claim of the driver is true, how fast was he driving the car? Take the speed of sound in air to be $330 m s^{- 1}$ .

Join BYJU'S Learning Program