1. A would likely not be held liable for the child’s sprained foot. Because it was committed to prevent a greater evil. 2. Yes, the driver can be held liable in this case. Negligence Foreseeable Harm the lack of maintenance suggests negligence on the driver's part.
The second question would be the answer is "B" because that driver was consent and helped the two strangers but unfortunately his vehicle went uncontrolled as mam has told that in "inevitable accident part that" if their was an external damage to the person unknowingly than that is not a guilt of that man
Koi ya btao jo second question hai usma no kyu hua agr isma no hoga to mam na abhi pdaya agr building gir jaye earth quich ka Bina to vo lible hoga plz koi CLEARity dedo mujha
It's simple reason that , in situation of building the people who living in it have given the payment to contracter and it's duty of contracter or society owner to ensure the maintenance but in the case of car , strangers willingly voluntary take a lift which the owner of Jeep not get any benefit from it , and it's just an accident, because in other sense he may also die in that scenario if the strangers were not their , so it's unintentional,
![BOWKYLION - วิงวอน (ex-change) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cLdnZWDaO-w/mqdefault.jpg)
📕Click Here To Enroll "CLAT Nexus 2025 Batch 2.0" 👇
physicswallah.onelink.me/ZAZB/aco4r2ct
📕Click Here To Enroll "CLAT Nexus 2025 Batch" For Free👇
physicswallah.onelink.me/ZAZB/f9ardbsy
📕Click Here To Enroll "CLAT Risers 2025 Batch"👇
physicswallah.onelink.me/ZAZB/zef2ttyc
📕Click Here To Enroll "CLAT Pro 2025 Batch"👇
physicswallah.onelink.me/ZAZB/q2epfw41
📳For CLAT Free Notes Quizzes and Tests - t.me/PWCLATWallah
📲PW App Link - smart.link/m4rvjjxijr6wd
🌐PW Website - www.pw.live
📌PW Store's Link: store.pw.live
This is very helpful batch mam for students who can't afford. Thanks mam dil sa support hai app har teachers ko
❤❤❤😊😊😊😊
1. No -: necessity
2. Yes -: its his duty to take his car for service timely
Q1 Option b No as A did was done in necessity
Q2 option b No it was an accident and the strangers voluntarily got into the jeep
Q1 - B No, as what A did was not done in NECESSITY
Q2- B No, as it was an accident and the stranger voluntarily got into the jeep
1
B- no it was nessecity
2
B- no they got into voluntary
Q1
B) NO AS WHAT A DID WAS DONE IN NECESSITY
Q A answer (B) option
QB answer (C) option
Q2
A)yes as he could have taken care of passengers
But he is not a cab man they have taken lift from then
Probably ma'am was talking about the show called Yellow Jackets... But I don't think that it was based on true events
1. A would likely not be held liable for the child’s sprained foot. Because it was committed to prevent a greater evil.
2. Yes, the driver can be held liable in this case.
Negligence
Foreseeable Harm
the lack of maintenance suggests negligence on the driver's part.
The second question would be the answer is "B" because that driver was consent and helped the two strangers but unfortunately his vehicle went uncontrolled as mam has told that in "inevitable accident part that" if their was an external damage to the person unknowingly than that is not a guilt of that man
@@Aumkaar12300 No It's Responsibility of Driver To Take Care of His Vehicle's Conditions
Koi ya btao jo second question hai usma no kyu hua agr isma no hoga to mam na abhi pdaya agr building gir jaye earth quich ka Bina to vo lible hoga plz koi CLEARity dedo mujha
It's simple reason that , in situation of building the people who living in it have given the payment to contracter and it's duty of contracter or society owner to ensure the maintenance but in the case of car , strangers willingly voluntary take a lift which the owner of Jeep not get any benefit from it , and it's just an accident, because in other sense he may also die in that scenario if the strangers were not their , so it's unintentional,
13:07 irrelevant
Q1.
A
Sorry mam aapse samajh me nahi hai aa rha hai manshi ma ka aacha lagta hai
🤔🫣😭😭😭
Q2.
A