For each of the correct response selected,give an explanation.

1. The defendant parked his sedan car in a street and left his dog inside. The dog has always been quiet and docile. As the plaintiff was walking past the car, the dog started jumping about in the car, smashed a glass panel, and a splinter entered into the plaintiff's left eye which had to be removed surgically. Decide for the plaintiff.

a. The case is one of strict liability. The plaintiff's claim will succeed.

b. The plaintiff's claim will fail since the event could not have been foreseen by the plaintiff and there was nothing he could do to avoid it.

c. The plaintiff's claim will fail as the dog was well-behaved and did not pose an inherent danger.

d. None of the above.

2. The parties were travelling along a mountain road, which the defendant-husband was familiar with. He knew it to be treacherous in winters, so he checked the weather conditions, and found it to be suitable. The defendant stated that he was driving at 100 kph when he heard a clunking sound, following which the vehicle suddenly lost braking and steering capacity, and veered towards the concrete barriers, injuring the plaintiff-wife. The plaintiff stated that she did not hear the clunking, but felt the vehicle take a sharp turn towards the concrete barriers. Decide for the plaintiff.

a. The claim will be successful since the defendant was familiar with the road and should not have been driving at such a great speed when he knew the road was treacherous.

b. The claim will fail since the defendant had lost control of his car inadvertently. Such a circumstance means that the situation was outside latter's control, and hence he was not liable.

c. The claim will succeed since a husband owes a greater duty of care towards his wife, than towards an ordinary person.

d. Facts are insufficient.

3. Suvesh drives an old, ill-maintained Tata Indica. One morning, while driving his car, he rammed into Shalini's Honda City. Shalini was driving on the wrong side of the road. Suvesh claims the defence of inevitable accident. Can he succeed?

a. Yes, because it was Shalini's fault that she was driving on the wrong side of the road.

b. Yes, but Shalini can claim a reduced amount as damages.

c. No, because the car was in a state of disrepair, which Suvesh had ignored to rectify.

d. Yes, because Shalini had no knowledge of road rules and safety.

4. Sakespeare had created an artificial lake on his land by damming some natural streams. One day, there was an extraordinarily heavy rainfall,heaviest in history of that area. Due to rainfall the embankments of the lake gave way. The rush washed away four bridges belonging to the plaintiff. Plaintiff claimed damages.

a.Defendants were liable.

b.Defendants were not liable.

c.Defendants were partly liable.

d.None of the above.

5. The wall of a building which had been ravaged by fire was allowed to remain standing. A medium-force wind pushed it down to the ground, killing the son of the plaintiff, who was playing near it. The landowner asserted non-liability because of the intervention of the high-speed wind. Do you think he is liable?

a. He is liable since a person owes a duty of care to his neighbours.

b. He is not liable since the wind, a natural force, was outside his control.

c. He is not liable since the neighbour did not take into account that the wall was unstable and allowed his son to play near it.

d. He is liable since winds are normal occurrences, and he was aware of the fact that the wall was destroyed and was structurally weak.