Question:medium

Principle: Nothing is an offence by reason of any harm it may cause to another person, if it is done in good faith and for the benefit of that person even without that person's consent.
Facts: A is attacked by a Lion and Lion drags him while he is crying for help. B, a passer by picks up A’s gun in good faith and fires at Lion which injures A. B has never used the gun before.

Show Hint

Actions done in good faith for the benefit of another person are not considered offences, even without consent.
Updated On: Jul 15, 2026
  • B is liable for the injury because he knew that he can injure A as he has never used any gun before
  • B is not liable as he has done the act in good faith
  • B is liable because he has not taken A’s consent before firing
  • B is liable because he has used A’s gun without his consent
Show Solution

The Correct Option is B

Approach Solution - 1

Step 1: Understanding the Principle:
An act that causes harm to a person is not an offence if it is done in good faith and for that person's benefit, even without their consent.

Step 2: Applying the Principle to the Facts:
A was being attacked by a lion and could not consent to anything. B grabbed the gun and fired to save A, clearly acting in good faith for A's benefit, even though B had never used a gun before and ended up injuring A.

Step 3: Evaluating the Other Options:
Lack of experience with the gun does not remove good faith, and the emergency explains why B could not seek A's consent or wait for anyone else to act. None of these facts point to bad faith on B's part.

Step 4: Final Answer:
B is not liable for the injury because the act was done in good faith to help A.
Was this answer helpful?
0
Show Solution

Approach Solution -2

Major premise: an act causing harm is not an offence if done in good faith for the benefit of the person harmed, even without that person's consent. Minor premise: A was being attacked by a lion and could not consent to anything; B, though never having used a gun before, fired at the lion in good faith to save A, and the shot injured A. Testing the conclusions:

  1. B is liable due to inexperience: This conclusion needs a premise that skill or experience affects the good-faith exception, but the major premise conditions the exception on intention and benefit, not competence, so this does not follow.
  2. B is not liable, as he acted in good faith: This follows directly, since the minor premise establishes exactly the two things the major premise requires, good faith and action for A's benefit.
  3. B is liable for not taking consent: This conclusion contradicts the major premise, which explicitly extends the exception to acts done without consent; requiring consent here would write that part of the rule out entirely.
  4. B is liable for using the gun without consent: This restates the same flawed logic as the option above and fails for the identical reason.

Only the second option is consistent with the major premise once the good-faith, for-A's-benefit facts in the minor premise are applied to it.

Therefore, the correct answer is B is not liable, as he acted in good faith.

Was this answer helpful?
0


Questions Asked in CLAT exam