Question

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.

• A. B is liable for the injury because he knew that he can injure A as he has never used any gun before
• B. B is not liable as he has done the act in good faith
• C. B is liable because he has not taken A’s consent before firing
• D. B is liable because he has used A’s gun without his consent

Hint:

Actions done in good faith for the benefit of another person are not considered offences, even without consent.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

According to the principle, an act is not an offence if it is done in good faith for the benefit of another person, even without their consent. In this case, B fired the gun in good faith to help A, as A was in danger from the lion. The act was done for the benefit of A and was not intended to harm him, making B not liable for the injury.
Thus, the correct answer is (B).
Option (A) is incorrect because B was acting in good faith and did not have the intention to harm A. Option (C) is incorrect because no consent was required due to the good faith nature of the act. Option (D) is incorrect because the gun was used to help A, not for any harmful purpose.

Answer 2

This question tests the good-faith exception to liability when someone acts to help another person without asking first. Let's examine each option.

1. B is liable because he knew he could injure A, never having used a gun before: Inexperience with a gun does not, on its own, take an act out of good faith. B was trying to save A from a life-threatening attack, and the principle protects acts done in good faith for another's benefit, even where things could go wrong.
2. B is not liable, as he acted in good faith: A was being mauled by a lion and needed urgent help. B picked up the gun and fired to save A, acting in good faith for A's benefit. The principle says such an act is not an offence even without the other person's consent, so B is not liable for the resulting injury.
3. B is liable because he did not take A's consent before firing: The whole reason the principle exists is that consent often cannot be obtained in an emergency. A was being attacked and in no position to give consent, and the principle specifically covers acts done without consent when done in good faith for the person's benefit.
4. B is liable because he used A's gun without A's consent: Using the gun without asking first is exactly the situation the good-faith principle is meant to cover, since there was no time to seek permission during the emergency. The absence of consent to use the gun does not create liability here.

Since B stepped in during an emergency, acted in good faith, and was trying to save A rather than harm him, the principle shields B from liability for the injury that resulted.

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

Answer 3

This question is about which facts actually defeat the good-faith exception, since several options try to use facts that do not touch good faith at all.

1. B is liable because he had never used a gun before: Inexperience with firearms speaks to skill, not to intention or motive. The good-faith exception looks at whether the actor was genuinely trying to help, not at how competently he carried it out, so this fact does not defeat the exception.
2. B is not liable, as he acted in good faith: This option correctly isolates the only fact that matters here, that B stepped in to save A from a life-threatening attack, which is precisely the good-faith, for-another's-benefit conduct the exception protects, consent or no consent.
3. B is liable because he did not take A's consent: The exception applies precisely because it covers acts done without consent; the emergency made asking for consent impossible in the first place, so the absence of consent cannot be the reason for liability here.
4. B is liable because he used A's gun without consent: This restates the same non-issue as the previous option in different words, focusing on the absence of permission rather than on whether the act was done in good faith for A's benefit, which is what actually governs the outcome.

Since the only fact that bears on liability, whether B acted in good faith for A's benefit, points squarely toward B, none of the surrounding facts, inexperience or lack of consent, can override that.

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