All Exams >
CLAT >
4 Months Preparation Course for CLAT UG >
All Questions
All questions of Law of Torts for CLAT Exam
PRINCIPLE: A gift comprising both existing and future property is void as to the latter.FACTS: X has a house which is owned by him. He contracted to purchase a plot of land adjacent to the said house but the sale (of the plot of land) in his favour is yet to be completed. He makes a gift of both the properties (house and land) to Y. Under the afore-mentioned circumstances, which of the following derivations is CORRECT?- a)Gift of both the properties is valid.
- b)Gift of both the properties is void.
- c)Gift of house is void, but the gift of the plot of land is valid.
- d)Gift of house is valid, but the gift of the plot of land is void.
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
PRINCIPLE: A gift comprising both existing and future property is void as to the latter.
FACTS: X has a house which is owned by him. He contracted to purchase a plot of land adjacent to the said house but the sale (of the plot of land) in his favour is yet to be completed. He makes a gift of both the properties (house and land) to Y. Under the afore-mentioned circumstances, which of the following derivations is CORRECT?
a)
Gift of both the properties is valid.
b)
Gift of both the properties is void.
c)
Gift of house is void, but the gift of the plot of land is valid.
d)
Gift of house is valid, but the gift of the plot of land is void.
|
Aditya Ghosh answered |
Principle: A gift comprising both existing and future property is void as to the latter.
Facts: X has a house which is owned by him. He contracted to purchase a plot of land adjacent to the said house but the sale (of the plot of land) in his favour is yet to be completed. He makes a gift of both the properties (house and land) to Y.
Derivation:
The principle states that a gift comprising both existing and future property is void as to the latter. In this case, X has made a gift of both the properties, i.e. the house and the plot of land, to Y. However, the sale of the plot of land in X's favour is yet to be completed, which means that the plot of land is a future property. Therefore, the gift of the plot of land is void as per the principle.
However, the gift of the house is valid as it is an existing property and can be given as a gift. Thus, option D, i.e. the gift of house is valid, but the gift of the plot of land is void, is the correct answer.
Conclusion:
A gift comprising both existing and future property is void as to the latter. In this case, the gift of the house is valid, but the gift of the plot of land is void as the sale of the plot of land in X's favour is yet to be completed.
Facts: X has a house which is owned by him. He contracted to purchase a plot of land adjacent to the said house but the sale (of the plot of land) in his favour is yet to be completed. He makes a gift of both the properties (house and land) to Y.
Derivation:
The principle states that a gift comprising both existing and future property is void as to the latter. In this case, X has made a gift of both the properties, i.e. the house and the plot of land, to Y. However, the sale of the plot of land in X's favour is yet to be completed, which means that the plot of land is a future property. Therefore, the gift of the plot of land is void as per the principle.
However, the gift of the house is valid as it is an existing property and can be given as a gift. Thus, option D, i.e. the gift of house is valid, but the gift of the plot of land is void, is the correct answer.
Conclusion:
A gift comprising both existing and future property is void as to the latter. In this case, the gift of the house is valid, but the gift of the plot of land is void as the sale of the plot of land in X's favour is yet to be completed.
PRINCIPLE: "Nobody shall unlawfully interfere with a person's use or enjoyment of land, or some right over, or in connection with it. The use or enjoyment, envisaged herein, should be normal and reasonable taking into account surrounding situation."
FACTS: Jeevan and Pavan were neighbours in a residential locality. Pavan started a typing class in a part of his house and his typing sound disturbed Jeevan who could not put up with any kind of continuous noise. He filed a suit against Pavan.
- a)Pavan is liable, because he should not have started typing class in his house
- b)Pavan is liable, because as a neighbour, he should have realised Jeevan's delicate nature
- c)None of these
- d)Pavan is not liable, because typing sound did not disturb anyone else other than Jeevan
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
PRINCIPLE: "Nobody shall unlawfully interfere with a person's use or enjoyment of land, or some right over, or in connection with it. The use or enjoyment, envisaged herein, should be normal and reasonable taking into account surrounding situation."
FACTS: Jeevan and Pavan were neighbours in a residential locality. Pavan started a typing class in a part of his house and his typing sound disturbed Jeevan who could not put up with any kind of continuous noise. He filed a suit against Pavan.
a)
Pavan is liable, because he should not have started typing class in his house
b)
Pavan is liable, because as a neighbour, he should have realised Jeevan's delicate nature
c)
None of these
d)
Pavan is not liable, because typing sound did not disturb anyone else other than Jeevan
|
Dia Mehta answered |
- Private Nuisance can be defined as "any continuous activity or state of affairs causing a substantial and unreasonable interference with a (claimant's) land or his use or enjoyment of that land".
- Private nuisance, unlike public nuisance, is only a tort, and damages for personal injuries are not recoverable.
PRINCIPLE: Nuisance as a tort (Civil wrong) means an unlawful interference with a person’s use of enjoyment of land, or some right over, or in connection with it.FACTS: During the scarcity of onions, long queues were made outside the defendant’s shop, who, having a license to sell fruits and vegetables, used to sell only 1 kg of onion per ration card. The queues extended on the highway and also caused some obstruction to the neighboring shops. The neighboring shopkeepers brought and action for nuisance against the defendant- a)The defendant is liable for nuisance
- b)The defendant was not liable for nuisance
- c)The defendant was liable under the principle of strict liability
- d)The plaintiff’s should be decreed in his favour
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
PRINCIPLE: Nuisance as a tort (Civil wrong) means an unlawful interference with a person’s use of enjoyment of land, or some right over, or in connection with it.
FACTS: During the scarcity of onions, long queues were made outside the defendant’s shop, who, having a license to sell fruits and vegetables, used to sell only 1 kg of onion per ration card. The queues extended on the highway and also caused some obstruction to the neighboring shops. The neighboring shopkeepers brought and action for nuisance against the defendant
a)
The defendant is liable for nuisance
b)
The defendant was not liable for nuisance
c)
The defendant was liable under the principle of strict liability
d)
The plaintiff’s should be decreed in his favour
|
Anaya Patel answered |
The correct option is A
- Nuisance is an unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over, or in connection with it. Nuisance is an injury to the right of a person in possession of a property to undisturbed enjoyment of it and result from an improper use by another person in his property.
- In the present case, the fruits and vegetable seller was lawfully selling his fruits and vegetables as he had a license to do so. Moreover, the queue before his shops was because of people who needed onions from him and not directly because of him as he is not interfering with others' use or enjoyment of land or some right over, or in connection with it. Hence, the defendant is not liable for nuisance.
PRINCIPLE: In a civil action for defamation, truth of the defamatory matter is an absolute defence. However, the burden of proving truth is on the defendant; and he is liable if he does not successfully discharge this burden.FACTS: D, who was the editor of a local weekly, published a series of articles mentioning that P, who was a government servant, issued false certificates, accepted bribe, adopted corrupt and illegal means to mint money and was a “mischief monger”. P brought a civil action against D, who could not prove the facts published by him. Under the circumstances, which of the following derivations is CORRECT?- a)D would be liable, since he could not prove the facts published by him.
- b)D would not be liable as such an action could curtail the right of expression and speech of press.
- c)D would not be liable as media could publish anything.
- d)None of the above.
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
PRINCIPLE: In a civil action for defamation, truth of the defamatory matter is an absolute defence. However, the burden of proving truth is on the defendant; and he is liable if he does not successfully discharge this burden.
FACTS: D, who was the editor of a local weekly, published a series of articles mentioning that P, who was a government servant, issued false certificates, accepted bribe, adopted corrupt and illegal means to mint money and was a “mischief monger”. P brought a civil action against D, who could not prove the facts published by him. Under the circumstances, which of the following derivations is CORRECT?
a)
D would be liable, since he could not prove the facts published by him.
b)
D would not be liable as such an action could curtail the right of expression and speech of press.
c)
D would not be liable as media could publish anything.
d)
None of the above.
|
|
Nishtha Pandey answered |
Facts shows that D was not able to prove all what he had published in the newspaper. Thus, he had used defamatory statement, performed maliciously to defame & harm to his reputation.
So, yes D would be liable, since he could not prove the facts published by him.
hope it helps!!!
So, yes D would be liable, since he could not prove the facts published by him.
hope it helps!!!
PRINCIPLE: Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent moves that property, such taking is said to commit theft.FACT: RAMU cuts down a tree on RINKU’S ground, with the intention of dishonestly taking the tree out of RINKU’S profession without RINKU’S consent. A could not take the tree away.- a)RAMU can be prosecuted for theft
- b)RAMU cannot be prosecuted for theft
- c)RAMU can be prosecuted for attempt to theft
- d)RAMU has neither committed theft nor attempt to commit theft
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
PRINCIPLE: Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent moves that property, such taking is said to commit theft.
FACT: RAMU cuts down a tree on RINKU’S ground, with the intention of dishonestly taking the tree out of RINKU’S profession without RINKU’S consent. A could not take the tree away.
a)
RAMU can be prosecuted for theft
b)
RAMU cannot be prosecuted for theft
c)
RAMU can be prosecuted for attempt to theft
d)
RAMU has neither committed theft nor attempt to commit theft
|
Faizan Khan answered |
Ramu will be prosecuted for theft, since he had theintention of taking away the tree after cutting it.
The principle clearly talks about the intention of taking away property.
The principle clearly talks about the intention of taking away property.
PRINCIPLE: When an act, which would otherwise be an offence, is not that offence by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, every person has the same right of private defence against that act, which he would have if the act were that offence. Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.FACTS: A, under the influence of madness, attempts to kill B. B in order to save his life cause grievous hurt to A.- a)A has committed an offence
- b)A has not committed an offence
- c)B has committed an offence
- d)B has not committed any offence
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
PRINCIPLE: When an act, which would otherwise be an offence, is not that offence by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, every person has the same right of private defence against that act, which he would have if the act were that offence. Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.
FACTS: A, under the influence of madness, attempts to kill B. B in order to save his life cause grievous hurt to A.
a)
A has committed an offence
b)
A has not committed an offence
c)
B has committed an offence
d)
B has not committed any offence
|
Sharanya chauhan answered |
Principle: Private Defence
According to the principle, when an act, which would otherwise be an offence, is not that offence by reason of the unsoundness of mind of the person doing that act, every person has the same right of private defence against that act, which he would have if the act were that offence. Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.
Facts: Attempt to Kill Under Influence of Madness
A, under the influence of madness, attempts to kill B. B, in order to save his life, causes grievous hurt to A.
Conclusion: B has not committed any offence
In this case, A was attempting to kill B under the influence of madness, which means he was not in a sound state of mind. As per the principle, nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. Therefore, B, in order to save his life, caused grievous hurt to A. This act is not an offence as B exercised his right to private defence.
Hence, the correct answer is option D, i.e., B has not committed any offence.
According to the principle, when an act, which would otherwise be an offence, is not that offence by reason of the unsoundness of mind of the person doing that act, every person has the same right of private defence against that act, which he would have if the act were that offence. Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.
Facts: Attempt to Kill Under Influence of Madness
A, under the influence of madness, attempts to kill B. B, in order to save his life, causes grievous hurt to A.
Conclusion: B has not committed any offence
In this case, A was attempting to kill B under the influence of madness, which means he was not in a sound state of mind. As per the principle, nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. Therefore, B, in order to save his life, caused grievous hurt to A. This act is not an offence as B exercised his right to private defence.
Hence, the correct answer is option D, i.e., B has not committed any offence.
A throws water on B and the drop of the water falls on B. A committed- a)Battery
- b)assault
- c)no offence
- d)none of the above
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
A throws water on B and the drop of the water falls on B. A committed
a)
Battery
b)
assault
c)
no offence
d)
none of the above
|
Udisha Mishra answered |
Battery means any using any physical force or a physical contact without any lawful justification. Here that drop is a medium and the act does not have any lawful justification. This it amount to battery.
The Railway authorities allowed a train to be over-crowded. In consequence, a legitimate passenger, Mr. X got his pocket picked. Choose appropriate answer-- a)Mr. X can sue the railway authorities for the loss suffered.
- b)Mr. X cannot sue because he had given his consent to travel in over-crowded train.
- c)Mr. X cannot sue the railway authorities because there was no infringement of legal right and mere fact that the loss was caused does not give to a cause of action.
- d)None of the above.
Correct answer is 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
The Railway authorities allowed a train to be over-crowded. In consequence, a legitimate passenger, Mr. X got his pocket picked. Choose appropriate answer-
a)
Mr. X can sue the railway authorities for the loss suffered.
b)
Mr. X cannot sue because he had given his consent to travel in over-crowded train.
c)
Mr. X cannot sue the railway authorities because there was no infringement of legal right and mere fact that the loss was caused does not give to a cause of action.
d)
None of the above.
|
|
Anaya Patel answered |
A cause of action is a set of facts that are used to justify claims or right to sue to obtain property or money or enforcement of a right against another party and since there is no infringement of legal rights of X, there is no cause of action arising against the Railway authority and hence he cannot sue them.
Principle - Violation of a legal right, with or without actual damage, gives rise to a tort. However, actual damage without violation of a legal right does not give rise to tortious liability.Facts – Ayush has a shop that offers printing, Xerox, and book binding services. In the shop, he also sells notebooks, stationery, printing inks, paper and other such items. He has a big board outside his shop displaying all the things he deals in, and this board is instrumental in attracting customers, who would otherwise be unaware that he sold such things. His shop is situated in a narrow street with several other stores. Rajesh owns a book store next to him, and he installs a display shelf with all the titles he sells, outside his shop in order to woo customers. This shelf obscures the view to Ayush‘s board, and there is a decrease in the number of customers who buy from him. Ayush decides to sue Rajesh and claim damages.- a)Ayush can get damages, as he has suffered damage. The display shelf of Rajesh obscured the view of Ayush‘s board, and Rajesh had no right to do that.
- b)Ayush can claim damages, but it is up to the court to grant them, as the loss suffered is not so substantial. The shelf did not entirely block the view to the board.
- c)Ayush cannot claim damages in this case, as his legal rights have not been violated by Rajesh in setting up a display shelf.
- d)None of the above.
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Principle - Violation of a legal right, with or without actual damage, gives rise to a tort. However, actual damage without violation of a legal right does not give rise to tortious liability.
Facts – Ayush has a shop that offers printing, Xerox, and book binding services. In the shop, he also sells notebooks, stationery, printing inks, paper and other such items. He has a big board outside his shop displaying all the things he deals in, and this board is instrumental in attracting customers, who would otherwise be unaware that he sold such things. His shop is situated in a narrow street with several other stores. Rajesh owns a book store next to him, and he installs a display shelf with all the titles he sells, outside his shop in order to woo customers. This shelf obscures the view to Ayush‘s board, and there is a decrease in the number of customers who buy from him. Ayush decides to sue Rajesh and claim damages.
a)
Ayush can get damages, as he has suffered damage. The display shelf of Rajesh obscured the view of Ayush‘s board, and Rajesh had no right to do that.
b)
Ayush can claim damages, but it is up to the court to grant them, as the loss suffered is not so substantial. The shelf did not entirely block the view to the board.
c)
Ayush cannot claim damages in this case, as his legal rights have not been violated by Rajesh in setting up a display shelf.
d)
None of the above.
|
Aishwarya Rajput answered |
Ayush suffered damages tho... but his actual legal rights were not violated. According to principle violation of LEGAL RIGHTS brings tortious liability... so he cannot claim damages.
PRINCIPLE - Violation of a legal right, with or without actual damage, gives rise to a tort. However, actual damage without violation of a legal right does not give rise to tortious liability.
FACTS – Arpita was travelling to Ladakh for a business visit, while she was stopped by some police officers at a check post on the highway. They detained her on the pretext of her possessing illegal substances on her person, and restricted her from contacting anybody who might help her in the predicament. As a result of being detained, she was unable to fulfil the purpose of her visit, and the business deal was lost, causing losses to her company. When she was finally released, she wished to sue the police authorities for infringement on her fundamental rights to movement, speech and expression.
Q. Will she succeed in these claims?
- a)Arpita will succeed only in the claim for violation of her right to movement, as the loss she suffered was due to this.
- b)Arpita cannot sue for violation of her right to freedom of speech and expression, as she was eventually released and did not suffer any real harm.
- c)Both (a) and (b)
- d)Arpita will succeed in both claims as there has been a violation of her legal rights in both circumstances, and the police authorities will be liable.
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
PRINCIPLE - Violation of a legal right, with or without actual damage, gives rise to a tort. However, actual damage without violation of a legal right does not give rise to tortious liability.
FACTS – Arpita was travelling to Ladakh for a business visit, while she was stopped by some police officers at a check post on the highway. They detained her on the pretext of her possessing illegal substances on her person, and restricted her from contacting anybody who might help her in the predicament. As a result of being detained, she was unable to fulfil the purpose of her visit, and the business deal was lost, causing losses to her company. When she was finally released, she wished to sue the police authorities for infringement on her fundamental rights to movement, speech and expression.
Q. Will she succeed in these claims?
Q. Will she succeed in these claims?
a)
Arpita will succeed only in the claim for violation of her right to movement, as the loss she suffered was due to this.
b)
Arpita cannot sue for violation of her right to freedom of speech and expression, as she was eventually released and did not suffer any real harm.
c)
Both (a) and (b)
d)
Arpita will succeed in both claims as there has been a violation of her legal rights in both circumstances, and the police authorities will be liable.
|
|
Anaya Patel answered |
The above case is based on the legal doctrine of Injuria sine damnum which means injury of legal rights without damage. It basically states that infringement of an absolute private right without any actual loss or damage. Here, physical damages or actual loss means loss or damage in terms of health, money, etc.
‘X’ with a view to murdering ‘Y’ enters ‘Y’ bedroom at night when ‘Y’ is out of station. What is ‘X’ guilty of?- a)Murder
- b)house trespass
- c)attempt to murder
- d)no offence
Correct answer is 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
‘X’ with a view to murdering ‘Y’ enters ‘Y’ bedroom at night when ‘Y’ is out of station. What is ‘X’ guilty of?
a)
Murder
b)
house trespass
c)
attempt to murder
d)
no offence
|
|
Dia Mehta answered |
Well as Y was away so murder or anything of that sort is impossible to happen, and as X went in with a view to murder Y he has committed trespass.
PRINCIPLES: 1. When a person unlawfully interferes in the chattel of another person by which the latter is deprived of its use, the former commits the tort of conversion.2. Nobody shall enrich himself at other’s expense.FACTS: A patient suffering from stomach ailment approached a teaching hospital. He was diagnosed as suffering from appendicitis and his appendix was removed. He became alright. The hospital however found some unique cells in the appendix, and using the cell lines thereof, it developed drugs of enormous commercial value. When the erstwhile patient came to know about it, he claimed a share in the profit made by the hospital.POSSIBLE DECISIONS:(a) The hospital need not share its profits with the patient.
(b) The hospital may share its profits on ex gratis basis.
(c) The hospital shall share its profits with the patient.POSSIBLE REASONS:(i) The patient, far from being deprived of the use of his appendix, actually benefitted by its removal.
(ii) The hospital instead of throwing away the appendix conducted further research on it on its own and the development of drug was the result of its own effort.
(iii) The hospital could not have achieved its success without that appendix belonging to the patient.
(iv) Everybody must care for and share with others.Your decision with the reason:- a)(a) (i)
- b)(a) (ii)
- c)(c) (iii)
- d)(c) (iv)
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
PRINCIPLES: 1. When a person unlawfully interferes in the chattel of another person by which the latter is deprived of its use, the former commits the tort of conversion.
2. Nobody shall enrich himself at other’s expense.
FACTS: A patient suffering from stomach ailment approached a teaching hospital. He was diagnosed as suffering from appendicitis and his appendix was removed. He became alright. The hospital however found some unique cells in the appendix, and using the cell lines thereof, it developed drugs of enormous commercial value. When the erstwhile patient came to know about it, he claimed a share in the profit made by the hospital.
POSSIBLE DECISIONS:
(a) The hospital need not share its profits with the patient.
(b) The hospital may share its profits on ex gratis basis.
(c) The hospital shall share its profits with the patient.
(b) The hospital may share its profits on ex gratis basis.
(c) The hospital shall share its profits with the patient.
POSSIBLE REASONS:
(i) The patient, far from being deprived of the use of his appendix, actually benefitted by its removal.
(ii) The hospital instead of throwing away the appendix conducted further research on it on its own and the development of drug was the result of its own effort.
(iii) The hospital could not have achieved its success without that appendix belonging to the patient.
(iv) Everybody must care for and share with others.
(ii) The hospital instead of throwing away the appendix conducted further research on it on its own and the development of drug was the result of its own effort.
(iii) The hospital could not have achieved its success without that appendix belonging to the patient.
(iv) Everybody must care for and share with others.
Your decision with the reason:
a)
(a) (i)
b)
(a) (ii)
c)
(c) (iii)
d)
(c) (iv)
|
|
Aryan Khanna answered |
Decision:
(a) The hospital need not share its profits with the patient.
Reason:
- (i) The patient, far from being deprived of the use of his appendix, actually benefitted by its removal.
- (ii) The hospital instead of throwing away the appendix conducted further research on it on its own and the development of the drug was the result of its own effort.
Explanation:
Based on the principles and facts, the hospital does not have to share its profits with the patient. This is because the patient was not deprived of the use of his appendix, but rather benefitted from its removal as it cured his stomach ailment. Moreover, the hospital used its resources and expertise to conduct research on the removed appendix and develop the commercially valuable drugs. The patient did not contribute to the development of the drug, and the hospital's success was due to its own efforts and research.
X along with other passengers hired a bus owned by Y and driven by his driver Z. in the mid-way, the bus was punctured. So Y transferred X and other passengers to another bus owned by L, and driven by his servant R. The second bus met with an accident, in which X died and some other passengers were injured. W, X widow, sued for her husband death. In this case which one of the following is correct?- a)Y is liable
- b)Z is liable
- c)L is liable
- d)R is liable
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
X along with other passengers hired a bus owned by Y and driven by his driver Z. in the mid-way, the bus was punctured. So Y transferred X and other passengers to another bus owned by L, and driven by his servant R. The second bus met with an accident, in which X died and some other passengers were injured. W, X widow, sued for her husband death. In this case which one of the following is correct?
a)
Y is liable
b)
Z is liable
c)
L is liable
d)
R is liable
|
|
Aishwarya Rajput answered |
As the facts are silent (no principle is given) we aren't bound to any principle Here master servant relationship is established so the master of the bus will be liable i.e., 'L'
Principle – The master is liable for the wrongful acts of the servant done in the course of employment. Facts – Pradyuman is a mechanic working in the car mechanics shop owned by Abhjit. Pallavi wants her Audi A8 to be serviced and cleaned, as she is planning to go on a long drive soon. She drops off the car at the mechanic‘s, and asks Pradyuman to have it ready in two days. Pradyuman, while trying to drive the car to the jet-cleaning area, accidentally bumps it against the wall and a dent is created on the car door. When Pallavi comes to take her serviced car, she is livid at the condition in which it is returned to her, and wishes to sue for damages.- a)Only Pradyuman will be liable as he has caused the damage to the car.
- b)Both Pradyuman and Abhijit will be jointly liable.
- c)Abhijit will be liable to pay damages, as Pradhyuman is his servant and the damage was caused in the course of employment.
- d)Pallavi will not be entitled to claim damages as she should not have given her car to a small mechanic such as Abhijit.
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Principle – The master is liable for the wrongful acts of the servant done in the course of employment.
Facts – Pradyuman is a mechanic working in the car mechanics shop owned by Abhjit. Pallavi wants her Audi A8 to be serviced and cleaned, as she is planning to go on a long drive soon. She drops off the car at the mechanic‘s, and asks Pradyuman to have it ready in two days. Pradyuman, while trying to drive the car to the jet-cleaning area, accidentally bumps it against the wall and a dent is created on the car door. When Pallavi comes to take her serviced car, she is livid at the condition in which it is returned to her, and wishes to sue for damages.
a)
Only Pradyuman will be liable as he has caused the damage to the car.
b)
Both Pradyuman and Abhijit will be jointly liable.
c)
Abhijit will be liable to pay damages, as Pradhyuman is his servant and the damage was caused in the course of employment.
d)
Pallavi will not be entitled to claim damages as she should not have given her car to a small mechanic such as Abhijit.
|
Nune. Triveni answered |
Answer is C. Applying the principle of Principal- Agent relationship. Principal is liable for any wrongs made by the servant or agent. So here it is very clear that the master is liable to pay on behalf of his servant Pradyuman. But later even master can also deduct the damages from the servant wages which is the other side of the case which is not relevant on the face of the question.
PRINCIPLE: A master is liable for the acts committed by his servant in the course of employment.FACT: Sanjay is a driver working in Brookebond and Co. One day, the Manager asked him to drop a customer at the airport and get back at the earliest. On his way back from the airport, he happened to see his fiancé Ruhina waiting for a bus to go home. He offered to drop her at home, which happened to be close to his office. She got into the car and soon thereafter; the car somersaulted due to negligence of Sanjay. Ruhina was thrown out of the car and suffered multiple injuries. She seeks compensation from Brookebond and Co.- a)Brookebond and Co., shall be liable, because Sanjay was in the course of employment at the time of accident
- b)Brookebond and Co., shall not be liable, Sanjay was not in the course of employment when he took Ruhina inside the car.
- c)Ruhina got into the car at her own risk, and therefore, she cannot sue anybody.
- d)None of the above.
Correct answer is 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
PRINCIPLE: A master is liable for the acts committed by his servant in the course of employment.
FACT: Sanjay is a driver working in Brookebond and Co. One day, the Manager asked him to drop a customer at the airport and get back at the earliest. On his way back from the airport, he happened to see his fiancé Ruhina waiting for a bus to go home. He offered to drop her at home, which happened to be close to his office. She got into the car and soon thereafter; the car somersaulted due to negligence of Sanjay. Ruhina was thrown out of the car and suffered multiple injuries. She seeks compensation from Brookebond and Co.
a)
Brookebond and Co., shall be liable, because Sanjay was in the course of employment at the time of accident
b)
Brookebond and Co., shall not be liable, Sanjay was not in the course of employment when he took Ruhina inside the car.
c)
Ruhina got into the car at her own risk, and therefore, she cannot sue anybody.
d)
None of the above.
|
|
Anaya Patel answered |
- Vicarious liability can be defined as a legal doctrine that assigns liability for an injury to a person who did not cause the injury who has a particular relationship to the person who did act negligently. It can also be called imputed negligence.
- This doctrine arises under the common law doctrine of agency, respondeat superior, the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate or, in a broader sense, the responsibility of any third party that had the "right, ability or duty to control" the activities of a violator.
- Hence, in the above situation, since the act was not committed in the course of employment, Ruhina will not succeed.
Principle: The employer is liable to pay compensation for the injuries suffered by his workers, if the accident has arisen out of and in the course of employment. The liability is absolute and the employer will not have any defences if the accident results in death or total disablement.Facts: Mr. Tharun is working as an unskilled worker in the furniture fabricating industry run by Mr. Omar in Bangalore. While Mr. Tharun and his co-workers were working on the preparation of a double decker iron cot, the thick iron sheet fell on the head of Mr. Tharun. He suffered serious head injuries. He was hospitalized and he died in the hospital. In the Government Hospital, where Mr. Tharun was admitted, the doctors delayed attending Mr. Tharun. It was also found out in the course of treatment that Mr. Tharun was drunk at the time when the accident occurred.- a)The hospital and the Government are liable to pay compensation to the dependents of Mr. Tharun as there was negligence on the part of the doctors.
- b)Mr. Omar is not liable to pay any compensation to the dependents of Mr. Tharun as he was drunk at the time of the accident.
- c)Mr. Omar is liable to pay compensation as per the law to the dependents of Mr. Tharun.
- d)Mr. Omar can argue that the drunken condition of Mr. Tharun is the reason for hisdeath.
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Principle: The employer is liable to pay compensation for the injuries suffered by his workers, if the accident has arisen out of and in the course of employment. The liability is absolute and the employer will not have any defences if the accident results in death or total disablement.
Facts: Mr. Tharun is working as an unskilled worker in the furniture fabricating industry run by Mr. Omar in Bangalore. While Mr. Tharun and his co-workers were working on the preparation of a double decker iron cot, the thick iron sheet fell on the head of Mr. Tharun. He suffered serious head injuries. He was hospitalized and he died in the hospital. In the Government Hospital, where Mr. Tharun was admitted, the doctors delayed attending Mr. Tharun. It was also found out in the course of treatment that Mr. Tharun was drunk at the time when the accident occurred.
a)
The hospital and the Government are liable to pay compensation to the dependents of Mr. Tharun as there was negligence on the part of the doctors.
b)
Mr. Omar is not liable to pay any compensation to the dependents of Mr. Tharun as he was drunk at the time of the accident.
c)
Mr. Omar is liable to pay compensation as per the law to the dependents of Mr. Tharun.
d)
Mr. Omar can argue that the drunken condition of Mr. Tharun is the reason for hisdeath.
|
|
Dia Mehta answered |
Here it does't matters that Tharun was drunk or doctor delayed in attending him but the pointis that it all occurs during course of employment so the master is liable. Stick to the principle. Correct answer is C .
PRINCIPLES: 1. An employer shall be liable for the wrongs committed by his employees in the course of employment.
2. Third parties must exercise reasonable care to find out whether a person is actually acting in the course of employment.FACTS: Nandan was appointed by Syndicate Bank to collect small savings from its customers spread over in different places on daily basis. Nagamma, a housemaid, was one of such ‘customers making use of Nandan’s service.
Syndicate Bank after a couple of years terminated Nandan’s service. Nagamma, unaware of this fact, was handing over her savings to Nandan who misappropriated them. Nagamma realised this nearly after three months, when she went to the Bank to withdraw money. She filed a complaint against the Bank.POSSIBLE DECISION:(a) Syndicate Bank shall be liable to compensate Nagamma.
(b) Syndicate Bank shall not be liable to compensate Nagamma.
(c) Nagamma has to blame herself for her negligence.POSSIBLE REASONS:(i) Nandan was not acting in the course of employment after the termination of his service.
(ii) A person cannot blame others for his own negligence.
(iii) Nagamma was entitled to be informed by the Bank about Nandan.
(iv) The Bank is entitled to expect its customers to know actual position.Your decision with the reason:- a)(b) (i)
- b)(c) (ii)
- c)(a) (iii)
- d)(b) (iv)
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
PRINCIPLES: 1. An employer shall be liable for the wrongs committed by his employees in the course of employment.
2. Third parties must exercise reasonable care to find out whether a person is actually acting in the course of employment.
2. Third parties must exercise reasonable care to find out whether a person is actually acting in the course of employment.
FACTS: Nandan was appointed by Syndicate Bank to collect small savings from its customers spread over in different places on daily basis. Nagamma, a housemaid, was one of such ‘customers making use of Nandan’s service.
Syndicate Bank after a couple of years terminated Nandan’s service. Nagamma, unaware of this fact, was handing over her savings to Nandan who misappropriated them. Nagamma realised this nearly after three months, when she went to the Bank to withdraw money. She filed a complaint against the Bank.
Syndicate Bank after a couple of years terminated Nandan’s service. Nagamma, unaware of this fact, was handing over her savings to Nandan who misappropriated them. Nagamma realised this nearly after three months, when she went to the Bank to withdraw money. She filed a complaint against the Bank.
POSSIBLE DECISION:
(a) Syndicate Bank shall be liable to compensate Nagamma.
(b) Syndicate Bank shall not be liable to compensate Nagamma.
(c) Nagamma has to blame herself for her negligence.
(b) Syndicate Bank shall not be liable to compensate Nagamma.
(c) Nagamma has to blame herself for her negligence.
POSSIBLE REASONS:
(i) Nandan was not acting in the course of employment after the termination of his service.
(ii) A person cannot blame others for his own negligence.
(iii) Nagamma was entitled to be informed by the Bank about Nandan.
(iv) The Bank is entitled to expect its customers to know actual position.
(ii) A person cannot blame others for his own negligence.
(iii) Nagamma was entitled to be informed by the Bank about Nandan.
(iv) The Bank is entitled to expect its customers to know actual position.
Your decision with the reason:
a)
(b) (i)
b)
(c) (ii)
c)
(a) (iii)
d)
(b) (iv)
|
S.S Career Academy answered |
Possible Decision:- (a) Syndicate Bank shall be liable to compensate Nagamma.- (b) Syndicate Bank shall not be liable to compensate Nagamma.- (c) Nagamma has to blame herself for her negligence.Possible Reasons:- (i) Nandan was not acting in the course of employment after the termination of his service.- (ii) A person cannot blame others for his own negligence.- (iii) Nagamma was entitled to be informed by the Bank about Nandan.- (iv) The Bank is entitled to expect its customers to know the actual position.Your decision with the reason:A: (b) (i) B: (c) (ii)C: (a) (iii)D: (b) (iv)Answer: C. Syndicate Bank shall be liable to compensate Nagamma.Explanation:According to the principles mentioned, an employer shall be liable for the wrongs committed by its employees in the course of employment. Since Nandan was appointed by Syndicate Bank to collect small savings from customers, the Bank should have informed Nagamma and other customers about the termination of Nandan's service. As Nagamma was not aware of this fact, she continued to hand over her savings to Nandan, who misappropriated them. Thus, the Bank should take responsibility for not informing its customers about the change in Nandan's employment status and compensate Nagamma for her loss.
PRINCIPLE: Damages are the money recompense, as far as money can do, for the violation of a right.FACTS: A, an Indian citizen, having a right to vote, was not allowed to cast his vote on the polling booth, by the returning officer. Name of A was mentioned in the voter’s list. A has also reported at the polling booth in time. However, the candidate in whose favour A would have cast his vote won the election. A filed a suit claiming damages.- a)A will be entitled to damages
- b)A will not be entitled to damages
- c)A will be entitled to only nominal damages
- d)A will be entitled to exemplary damages
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
PRINCIPLE: Damages are the money recompense, as far as money can do, for the violation of a right.
FACTS: A, an Indian citizen, having a right to vote, was not allowed to cast his vote on the polling booth, by the returning officer. Name of A was mentioned in the voter’s list. A has also reported at the polling booth in time. However, the candidate in whose favour A would have cast his vote won the election. A filed a suit claiming damages.
a)
A will be entitled to damages
b)
A will not be entitled to damages
c)
A will be entitled to only nominal damages
d)
A will be entitled to exemplary damages
|
Varsha choudhary answered |
List, but the returning officer refused to allow him to vote. A filed a case for violation of his right to vote and claimed damages in the court.
DECISION: The court held that A's right to vote was violated by the returning officer, and he is entitled to damages for the same. Damages are the money recompense, as far as money can do, for the violation of a right. In this case, A was deprived of his right to vote, which is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of India. Therefore, the court awarded damages to A as a compensation for the violation of his right to vote.
DECISION: The court held that A's right to vote was violated by the returning officer, and he is entitled to damages for the same. Damages are the money recompense, as far as money can do, for the violation of a right. In this case, A was deprived of his right to vote, which is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of India. Therefore, the court awarded damages to A as a compensation for the violation of his right to vote.
PRINCIPLE: Everybody is under a legal obligation to take reasonable care to avoid and act or omission which he can take reasonable care to avoid and act or omission which he can foresee would injure his neighbour. The neighbour, for this purpose, is any person whom he should have in his mind as likely to be affected by his act.FACTS: Krishnan, while driving a car at high speed in a crowded road, knocked down a cyclist. The cyclist died on the spot with a lot of blood spilling around, Lakshmi, a pregnant woman passing by, suffered from a nervous shock, leading to abortion. Lakshmi filed a suit against Krishnan claiming damages.- a)Krishnan will be liable, because he owed a duty of reasonable care to everybody on the road including Lakshmi.
- b)Krishnan will not be liable, because he could not have foreseen Lakshmi suffering from nervous shock as a result of his act.
- c)Krishnan will be liable to Lakshmi because he failed to drive carefully.
- d)None of the above.
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
PRINCIPLE: Everybody is under a legal obligation to take reasonable care to avoid and act or omission which he can take reasonable care to avoid and act or omission which he can foresee would injure his neighbour. The neighbour, for this purpose, is any person whom he should have in his mind as likely to be affected by his act.
FACTS: Krishnan, while driving a car at high speed in a crowded road, knocked down a cyclist. The cyclist died on the spot with a lot of blood spilling around, Lakshmi, a pregnant woman passing by, suffered from a nervous shock, leading to abortion. Lakshmi filed a suit against Krishnan claiming damages.
a)
Krishnan will be liable, because he owed a duty of reasonable care to everybody on the road including Lakshmi.
b)
Krishnan will not be liable, because he could not have foreseen Lakshmi suffering from nervous shock as a result of his act.
c)
Krishnan will be liable to Lakshmi because he failed to drive carefully.
d)
None of the above.
|
|
Anaya Patel answered |
Remoteness of damage is inversely proportional to the amount of compensation and here Krishna is unable to see this consequences that is why laxmi is not entitled to compensation.
Assertion (A): when you invite somebody to your house, you cannot sue him for trespass.Reason (R): one cannot enforce a right which one has voluntarily waived or abandonedCodes:- a)Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A)
- b)Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is not the correct explanation of (A)
- c)(A) is true (R) is wrong
- d)(A) is wrong (R) is wrong
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Assertion (A): when you invite somebody to your house, you cannot sue him for trespass.
Reason (R): one cannot enforce a right which one has voluntarily waived or abandoned
Codes:
a)
Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A)
b)
Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is not the correct explanation of (A)
c)
(A) is true (R) is wrong
d)
(A) is wrong (R) is wrong
|
|
Anaya Patel answered |
A is the correct option.Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A). If we take an example to prove the situation- if person A voluntarily invites person B in his house then person A can't sue B for trespass.
PRINCIPLE: Interference with another’s goods in such a way as to deny the latter’s title to the goods amounts to conversion, and thus it is a civil wrong. It is an act intentionally done inconsistent with the owner’s right, though the doer may not know of, or intends to challenge the property or possession of the true owner.
FACTS: R went to a cycle-stand to park his bicycle. Seeing the stand fully occupied, he removed a few bicycles in order to rearrange a portion of the stand and make some space for his bicycle. He parked his bicycle properly, and put back all the bicycles except the one belonging to S. In fact, R was in a hurry, and therefore, he could not put back S’s bicycle. Somebody came on the way and took away S’s bicycle. The watchman of the stand did not take care of it assuming that the bicycle was not parked inside the stand. S filed a suit against R for conversion.
Q. Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?
- a)R could not be held liable for the negligence of the watchman.
- b)S would succeed because R’s act led to the stealing of his bicycle.
- c)S would not succeed because R did not take away the bicycle himself.
- d)S would not succeed because R’s intention was not bad.
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
PRINCIPLE: Interference with another’s goods in such a way as to deny the latter’s title to the goods amounts to conversion, and thus it is a civil wrong. It is an act intentionally done inconsistent with the owner’s right, though the doer may not know of, or intends to challenge the property or possession of the true owner.
FACTS: R went to a cycle-stand to park his bicycle. Seeing the stand fully occupied, he removed a few bicycles in order to rearrange a portion of the stand and make some space for his bicycle. He parked his bicycle properly, and put back all the bicycles except the one belonging to S. In fact, R was in a hurry, and therefore, he could not put back S’s bicycle. Somebody came on the way and took away S’s bicycle. The watchman of the stand did not take care of it assuming that the bicycle was not parked inside the stand. S filed a suit against R for conversion.
Q. Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?
Q. Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?
a)
R could not be held liable for the negligence of the watchman.
b)
S would succeed because R’s act led to the stealing of his bicycle.
c)
S would not succeed because R did not take away the bicycle himself.
d)
S would not succeed because R’s intention was not bad.
|
|
Dia Mehta answered |
According to the principle given here it is clear that R had made interference with S’s property.
- Interference with another’s goods in such a way as to deny the latter’s title to the goods amounts to conversion, and thus it is a civil wrong.
- It is an act intentionally done inconsistent with the owner’s right, though the doer may not know of, or intends to challenge the property or possession of the true owner.
PRINCIPLE: Any direct physical interference with the goods in somebody’s possession without lawful justification is called trespass to goods.FACTS: A purchased a car from a person who had no little to it and had sent it to a garage for repair. X, believing, wrongly, that the car was his, removed it from the garage.- a)X can be held responsible for trespass to goods.
- b)X cannot be held responsible for trespass to good as he was under a wrong belief.
- c)X has not committed any wrong.
- d)None of the above.
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
PRINCIPLE: Any direct physical interference with the goods in somebody’s possession without lawful justification is called trespass to goods.
FACTS: A purchased a car from a person who had no little to it and had sent it to a garage for repair. X, believing, wrongly, that the car was his, removed it from the garage.
a)
X can be held responsible for trespass to goods.
b)
X cannot be held responsible for trespass to good as he was under a wrong belief.
c)
X has not committed any wrong.
d)
None of the above.
|
|
Anaya Patel answered |
It is clear from the principle,
- Any direct physical interference with the goods in somebody’s possession without lawful justification is called trespass to goods.
X, believing, wrongly, that the car was his, removed it from the garage. Wrong belief is not a remedy available in torts.
______are words which appear innocent, but contain a latent meaning which is defamatory- a)Libel
- b)Slander
- c)Innuendoes
- d)None of the above
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
______are words which appear innocent, but contain a latent meaning which is defamatory
a)
Libel
b)
Slander
c)
Innuendoes
d)
None of the above
|
Eshaan Kapoor answered |
Innuendoes is an indirect way of talking about somebody/something, usually suggesting something bad or rude.
PRINCIPLE: A person has no legal remedy for an injury caused by an act to which he has consentedFACTS: R, a cricket enthusiast, purchases a ticket to watch a T20 match organized by the Indian Premier League (IPL). During the match, a ball struck for six hits R on his body and injures him. He sues IPL for compensation for the medical expenses. Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?- a)R should be compensated as he purchased the ticket to get entertainment and not get injured.
- b)R would fail in his action, as he voluntarily exposed himself to the risk.
- c)IPL would be liable as it did not ensure that the spectators were protected from the risk of such injuries.
- d)None of the above.
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
PRINCIPLE: A person has no legal remedy for an injury caused by an act to which he has consented
FACTS: R, a cricket enthusiast, purchases a ticket to watch a T20 match organized by the Indian Premier League (IPL). During the match, a ball struck for six hits R on his body and injures him. He sues IPL for compensation for the medical expenses. Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?
a)
R should be compensated as he purchased the ticket to get entertainment and not get injured.
b)
R would fail in his action, as he voluntarily exposed himself to the risk.
c)
IPL would be liable as it did not ensure that the spectators were protected from the risk of such injuries.
d)
None of the above.
|
Tejaswini nayar answered |
Principle:
A person has no legal remedy for an injury caused by an act to which he has consented.
Facts:
R, a cricket enthusiast, purchases a ticket to watch a T20 match organized by the Indian Premier League (IPL). During the match, a ball struck for six hits R on his body and injures him. He sues IPL for compensation for the medical expenses.
Correct derivation:
The correct derivation is option 'B', i.e., R would fail in his action, as he voluntarily exposed himself to the risk.
Explanation:
When R purchased the ticket for the T20 match, he voluntarily exposed himself to the risk of getting hit by a ball. It is a well-known fact that cricket is a sport played with a hard ball, and there is always a risk of getting hit by a ball while watching the game. By purchasing a ticket and entering the stadium, R has impliedly consented to the risk of getting hit by a ball.
Therefore, R has no legal remedy for the injury caused by the ball hitting him as he had already consented to the risk while watching the match. IPL is not liable for the injury caused to R as it does not owe any duty of care to R in this case. IPL has taken all reasonable steps to ensure the safety of the spectators, and R had voluntarily exposed himself to the risk of getting hit by a ball.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, R cannot claim compensation from IPL for the injury caused by the ball hitting him as he had already consented to the risk by purchasing the ticket and entering the stadium. Therefore, option 'B' is the correct derivation in this case.
A person has no legal remedy for an injury caused by an act to which he has consented.
Facts:
R, a cricket enthusiast, purchases a ticket to watch a T20 match organized by the Indian Premier League (IPL). During the match, a ball struck for six hits R on his body and injures him. He sues IPL for compensation for the medical expenses.
Correct derivation:
The correct derivation is option 'B', i.e., R would fail in his action, as he voluntarily exposed himself to the risk.
Explanation:
When R purchased the ticket for the T20 match, he voluntarily exposed himself to the risk of getting hit by a ball. It is a well-known fact that cricket is a sport played with a hard ball, and there is always a risk of getting hit by a ball while watching the game. By purchasing a ticket and entering the stadium, R has impliedly consented to the risk of getting hit by a ball.
Therefore, R has no legal remedy for the injury caused by the ball hitting him as he had already consented to the risk while watching the match. IPL is not liable for the injury caused to R as it does not owe any duty of care to R in this case. IPL has taken all reasonable steps to ensure the safety of the spectators, and R had voluntarily exposed himself to the risk of getting hit by a ball.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, R cannot claim compensation from IPL for the injury caused by the ball hitting him as he had already consented to the risk by purchasing the ticket and entering the stadium. Therefore, option 'B' is the correct derivation in this case.
PRINCIPLE: Res ipsa loquitur, i.e., the thing speaks for itself.FACTS: Seema got herself operated for the removal of her uterus in the defendant’s hospital, as there was diagnosed to be a cyst in one of her ovaries. Due the negligence of the surgeon, who performed the operation, abdominal pack was left in her abdomen. The same was removed by a second surgery.- a)Surgeon cannot be held responsible because it is merely a human error
- b)Surgeon can be held responsible but Seema will have to prove in the court of law that the surgeon was grossly negligent
- c)Surgeon will be responsible and Seema need not to prove surgeon’s negligence because presence of abdominal pack in her abdomen is sufficient proof therefore
- d)None of the above
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
PRINCIPLE: Res ipsa loquitur, i.e., the thing speaks for itself.
FACTS: Seema got herself operated for the removal of her uterus in the defendant’s hospital, as there was diagnosed to be a cyst in one of her ovaries. Due the negligence of the surgeon, who performed the operation, abdominal pack was left in her abdomen. The same was removed by a second surgery.
a)
Surgeon cannot be held responsible because it is merely a human error
b)
Surgeon can be held responsible but Seema will have to prove in the court of law that the surgeon was grossly negligent
c)
Surgeon will be responsible and Seema need not to prove surgeon’s negligence because presence of abdominal pack in her abdomen is sufficient proof therefore
d)
None of the above
|
|
Anaya Patel answered |
Surgeon left an abdominal pack in her abdomen which is a fact and it speaks for itself and hence sufficient enough for the case.
______ is an act which is twisted, crooked, which is not straight and lawful- a)Tort
- b)Crime
- c)Wrong
- d)None of the above
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
______ is an act which is twisted, crooked, which is not straight and lawful
a)
Tort
b)
Crime
c)
Wrong
d)
None of the above
|
|
Aryan Khanna answered |
Answer: A. Tort
Explanation:
A tort is a civil wrong that causes harm or loss to another individual, leading to legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. The main characteristics of a tort include:
- Twisted, crooked, and not straight: A tort is an act that deviates from what is considered lawful and reasonable behavior, causing harm or loss to someone else.
- Not a crime: While crimes are also unlawful acts, torts are distinct from crimes. A crime is a violation of the law that leads to criminal prosecution, while a tort is a civil matter that leads to legal liability and compensation for the injured party.
- Requires a remedy: The main purpose of tort law is to provide a remedy, usually in the form of monetary compensation, to the injured party. This is different from criminal law, where the main purpose is to punish the wrongdoer and protect society.
- Based on fault: Most torts are based on fault or negligence, meaning that the person who commits the tortious act is responsible for the consequences of their actions.
In summary, a tort is an act that is twisted, crooked, and not straight, leading to legal liability for the person who commits the act. It is different from a crime, as it is a civil wrong rather than a criminal offense, and the main aim is to provide a remedy to the injured party.
Explanation:
A tort is a civil wrong that causes harm or loss to another individual, leading to legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. The main characteristics of a tort include:
- Twisted, crooked, and not straight: A tort is an act that deviates from what is considered lawful and reasonable behavior, causing harm or loss to someone else.
- Not a crime: While crimes are also unlawful acts, torts are distinct from crimes. A crime is a violation of the law that leads to criminal prosecution, while a tort is a civil matter that leads to legal liability and compensation for the injured party.
- Requires a remedy: The main purpose of tort law is to provide a remedy, usually in the form of monetary compensation, to the injured party. This is different from criminal law, where the main purpose is to punish the wrongdoer and protect society.
- Based on fault: Most torts are based on fault or negligence, meaning that the person who commits the tortious act is responsible for the consequences of their actions.
In summary, a tort is an act that is twisted, crooked, and not straight, leading to legal liability for the person who commits the act. It is different from a crime, as it is a civil wrong rather than a criminal offense, and the main aim is to provide a remedy to the injured party.
PRINCIPLE: “Nobody shall unlawfully interfere with a person’s use or enjoyment of land, or some right over, or in connection with it. The use or enjoyment, envisaged herein, should be normal and reasonable taking into account surrounding situation”FACTS: Jeevan and Pavan were neighbours in residential locality. Pavan started a typing class in a part of his house and his typing sound disturbed Jeevan, who could not put up with and kind of continuous noise. He filed a suit against Pavan.- a)Pavan is liable, because he should not have started typing class in his house
- b)Pavan is liable, because as his neighbour, he should have realized Jeevan’s delicate nature.
- c)Pavan is not liable, because typing sound did not disturb anyone else other than Jeevan.
- d)None of these
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
PRINCIPLE: “Nobody shall unlawfully interfere with a person’s use or enjoyment of land, or some right over, or in connection with it. The use or enjoyment, envisaged herein, should be normal and reasonable taking into account surrounding situation
”FACTS: Jeevan and Pavan were neighbours in residential locality. Pavan started a typing class in a part of his house and his typing sound disturbed Jeevan, who could not put up with and kind of continuous noise. He filed a suit against Pavan.
a)
Pavan is liable, because he should not have started typing class in his house
b)
Pavan is liable, because as his neighbour, he should have realized Jeevan’s delicate nature.
c)
Pavan is not liable, because typing sound did not disturb anyone else other than Jeevan.
d)
None of these
|
|
Anaya Patel answered |
The correct option is C.
The principle states that nobody shall unlawfully interfere with a person’s use or enjoyment.
Hence starting a typing class is not an unlawful activity therefore pavan is not liable.
The term ‘Scienter’ is related to which one of the following sign boards- a)Trespassers will be prosecuted
- b)beware of dogs
- c)no parking
- d)no admission without permission
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
The term ‘Scienter’ is related to which one of the following sign boards
a)
Trespassers will be prosecuted
b)
beware of dogs
c)
no parking
d)
no admission without permission
|
|
Eshaan Kapoor answered |
The term 'Scienter' is related to the following sign board:B: Beware of dogsExplanation:- 'Scienter' is a legal term derived from Latin, meaning "knowingly" or "with knowledge".- In the context of the "Beware of dogs" sign, the term 'Scienter' is used to imply that the property owner has knowledge of a potentially dangerous dog on their premises.- By displaying this sign, the property owner is warning others of a potential danger and protecting themselves from legal liability if someone is injured by the dog.- This sign helps to establish that the person entering the property was aware of the potential risk and chose to proceed, which can be used as a defense in case of a lawsuit.
PRINCIPLE: Trespass to land means direct interference with the possession of land without lawful justification. Trespass could be committed either by a person himself entering the land of another person or doing the same through some tangible object(s).FACTS: A throws some stones upon his neighbor’s (B’s) premises.Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?- a)A has committed trespass.
- b)A has not committed trespass, as he has not entered B’s premises.
- c)A has committed nuisance.
- d)None of the above.
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
PRINCIPLE: Trespass to land means direct interference with the possession of land without lawful justification. Trespass could be committed either by a person himself entering the land of another person or doing the same through some tangible object(s).
FACTS: A throws some stones upon his neighbor’s (B’s) premises.Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?
a)
A has committed trespass.
b)
A has not committed trespass, as he has not entered B’s premises.
c)
A has committed nuisance.
d)
None of the above.
|
Nishant Upadhyay answered |
According to the principle "Trespass could be by entering the land himself or doing the same by tangible objects" Tangible objects are the objects which can be touched and throwing stuff like a stone is a tangible object. Hence A has committed trespass
Principle – Volenti non fit injuria - No remedy can be claimed for harm caused through voluntary consent.Facts – On a hot, sunny day, Avtar Singh, a traffic policeman wishes to take a break from his work on the Jangpura-Jayanagar junction. He sees a grocery store nearby, and decides to buy some refreshments. To get to the grocery store, he must cross the busy road first. While doing so, he sees that a child has suddenly jumped down from the pavement on the other side, and is attempting to cross the road, despite vehicles hurtling past at a high speed. On seeing an approaching car that the child does not seem to be aware of, Avtar lunges forward and pushes the child out of the way. However, the driver of the car, Mr. Takwani, is unable to stop the car in time and hits Avtar, who sustains serious injuries, including a torn ligament. This means that Avtar will not be able to perform his duties as a traffic policeman for at least six months. He wishes to sue Takwani and claim damages for his loss in income, but Takwani asserts that there was a green light, and he had committed no fault in driving at a reasonable speed. It was Avtar who had suddenly lunged forward, giving him no time to apply the brakes! Decide.- a)Avtar voluntarily lunged forward to save the child from being hit by the approaching car, fully aware that there were vehicles approaching at high speeds. Therefore, he cannot claim damages.
- b)Avtar had no option but to put himself in harm‘s way, and save the innocent child. Takwani should have been more careful while driving, and hence, he must pay damages for the harm suffered by Avtar.
- c)Avtar was being unnecessarily noble, his act was entirely voluntary, so he cannot claim any damages.
- d)Takwani was at fault, and must be prosecuted for rash and reckless driving.Ans. A
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Principle – Volenti non fit injuria - No remedy can be claimed for harm caused through voluntary consent.
Facts – On a hot, sunny day, Avtar Singh, a traffic policeman wishes to take a break from his work on the Jangpura-Jayanagar junction. He sees a grocery store nearby, and decides to buy some refreshments. To get to the grocery store, he must cross the busy road first. While doing so, he sees that a child has suddenly jumped down from the pavement on the other side, and is attempting to cross the road, despite vehicles hurtling past at a high speed. On seeing an approaching car that the child does not seem to be aware of, Avtar lunges forward and pushes the child out of the way. However, the driver of the car, Mr. Takwani, is unable to stop the car in time and hits Avtar, who sustains serious injuries, including a torn ligament. This means that Avtar will not be able to perform his duties as a traffic policeman for at least six months. He wishes to sue Takwani and claim damages for his loss in income, but Takwani asserts that there was a green light, and he had committed no fault in driving at a reasonable speed. It was Avtar who had suddenly lunged forward, giving him no time to apply the brakes! Decide.
a)
Avtar voluntarily lunged forward to save the child from being hit by the approaching car, fully aware that there were vehicles approaching at high speeds. Therefore, he cannot claim damages.
b)
Avtar had no option but to put himself in harm‘s way, and save the innocent child. Takwani should have been more careful while driving, and hence, he must pay damages for the harm suffered by Avtar.
c)
Avtar was being unnecessarily noble, his act was entirely voluntary, so he cannot claim any damages.
d)
Takwani was at fault, and must be prosecuted for rash and reckless driving.Ans. A
|
Nishant Upadhyay answered |
As simple as it is, Volenti Non Fit Injuria - No damages for harm caused by voluntary actions.Avtar jumped before the car by his own wish to save the child so he can't clam any damages whatsoever. There is no mention of Takwani being rash so option D and B are out.between option A and C, A is the better pick because it justifies the whole thing properly and unnecessarily noble is just not right in option C
PRINCIPLES: 1. A person is liable for negligence, if he fails to take care of his neighbor’s interest.
2. A neighbour is anyone whose interests should have been foreseeable by a reasonable man while carrying on his activities.FACTS: A cricket match was going on in a closed door stadium. A cricket fan who could not get into the stadium was watching the game by climbing up a nearby tree and sitting there. The cricket ball in the course of the game went out of the stadium and hit this person and injured him. He filed a suit against the organizers.POSSIBLE DECISIONS:(a) The organizers are liable to compensate the injured person.
(b) The organizers are not liable to compensate the injured person.
(c) The injured person should have avoided the place where he might be hit by the cricket ball.POSSIBLE REASONS:(i) The organizers are responsible for the people inside the stadium.
(ii) The organizers could not have foreseen somebody watching the game by climbing up a tree.
(iii) A person crazy about something must pay the price for that.
(iv) The organizers shall be liable to everybody likely to watch the game.
Your decision with the reason:- a)(a) (iv)
- b)(a) (iii)
- c)(b) (ii)
- d)(c) (i)
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
PRINCIPLES: 1. A person is liable for negligence, if he fails to take care of his neighbor’s interest.
2. A neighbour is anyone whose interests should have been foreseeable by a reasonable man while carrying on his activities.
2. A neighbour is anyone whose interests should have been foreseeable by a reasonable man while carrying on his activities.
FACTS: A cricket match was going on in a closed door stadium. A cricket fan who could not get into the stadium was watching the game by climbing up a nearby tree and sitting there. The cricket ball in the course of the game went out of the stadium and hit this person and injured him. He filed a suit against the organizers.
POSSIBLE DECISIONS:
(a) The organizers are liable to compensate the injured person.
(b) The organizers are not liable to compensate the injured person.
(c) The injured person should have avoided the place where he might be hit by the cricket ball.
(b) The organizers are not liable to compensate the injured person.
(c) The injured person should have avoided the place where he might be hit by the cricket ball.
POSSIBLE REASONS:
(i) The organizers are responsible for the people inside the stadium.
(ii) The organizers could not have foreseen somebody watching the game by climbing up a tree.
(iii) A person crazy about something must pay the price for that.
(iv) The organizers shall be liable to everybody likely to watch the game.
Your decision with the reason:
(ii) The organizers could not have foreseen somebody watching the game by climbing up a tree.
(iii) A person crazy about something must pay the price for that.
(iv) The organizers shall be liable to everybody likely to watch the game.
Your decision with the reason:
a)
(a) (iv)
b)
(a) (iii)
c)
(b) (ii)
d)
(c) (i)
|
|
Dia Mehta answered |
In this case, the correct decision is:Decision C: The organizers are not liable to compensate the injured person.Possible reasons for this decision are:- Reason ii: The organizers could not have foreseen somebody watching the game by climbing up a tree. They are responsible for the safety of the people inside the stadium, but they cannot be expected to predict or prevent all possible dangers to individuals who choose to watch the game from unconventional and potentially unsafe locations.In contrast, the other possible decisions and their reasons are not as relevant or appropriate in this scenario:- Decision A (organizers are liable) with Reason iii (a person crazy about something must pay the price for that) does not make sense because it contradicts the decision itself. If the injured person must pay the price for their behavior, then the organizers should not be held liable.- Decision A with Reason iv (the organizers shall be liable to everybody likely to watch the game) is not accurate because the organizers cannot reasonably be expected to be responsible for the safety of individuals who choose to watch the game from locations outside the stadium, especially if those locations are potentially dangerous.- Decision D (the injured person should have avoided the place where he might be hit by the cricket ball) with Reason i (the organizers are responsible for the people inside the stadium) is not the best option because it does not directly address the liability of the organizers for the injured person's actions. The focus should be on whether the organizers could reasonably foresee and prevent the injury, which they could not.
Principle - Violation of a legal right, with or without actual damage, gives rise to a tort. However, actual damage without violation of a legal right does not give rise to tortuous liability.Facts – Mr. Akhil lives in a locality that lies just off the main road, which supports heavy traffic and is one of the most important roads in his city. The street on which his house is located is, however, quiet and peaceful, and Akhil is pleased to live there. One day, some road repair works are undertaken on the main road, and as a result, the municipal authorities decide to divert the traffic through the street on which Akhil resides. Akhil is greatly disturbed and annoyed by the constant sound of the vehicles, honking, and traffic jams along the narrow street. He wishes to sue the municipal authorities for the nuisance caused by this diversion of traffic. Will he succeed?- a)Yes, Akhil will succeed, as his legal right to a peaceful environment is violated by the constant noise of the vehicles.
- b)Yes, Akhil will succeed, as his mental peace has been affected by the act of the municipal authorities.
- c)No, Akhil has no legal right to enjoy a peaceful street, so there has been no violation of a legal right, despite actual damage. So, he cannot succeed in a tortious claim.
- d)Facts are inadequate to decide.
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Principle - Violation of a legal right, with or without actual damage, gives rise to a tort. However, actual damage without violation of a legal right does not give rise to tortuous liability.
Facts – Mr. Akhil lives in a locality that lies just off the main road, which supports heavy traffic and is one of the most important roads in his city. The street on which his house is located is, however, quiet and peaceful, and Akhil is pleased to live there. One day, some road repair works are undertaken on the main road, and as a result, the municipal authorities decide to divert the traffic through the street on which Akhil resides. Akhil is greatly disturbed and annoyed by the constant sound of the vehicles, honking, and traffic jams along the narrow street. He wishes to sue the municipal authorities for the nuisance caused by this diversion of traffic. Will he succeed?
a)
Yes, Akhil will succeed, as his legal right to a peaceful environment is violated by the constant noise of the vehicles.
b)
Yes, Akhil will succeed, as his mental peace has been affected by the act of the municipal authorities.
c)
No, Akhil has no legal right to enjoy a peaceful street, so there has been no violation of a legal right, despite actual damage. So, he cannot succeed in a tortious claim.
d)
Facts are inadequate to decide.
|
|
Anaya Patel answered |
Violation of a legal right, with or without actual damage, gives rise to a tort. However, actual damage without violation of a legal right does not give rise to tortuous liability.
Akhil has no legal right to enjoy a peaceful street, so there has been no violation of a legal right, despite actual damage. So, he cannot succeed in a tortious claim.
Ms. Usha wants to file a suit against Bhagyalaxmi Theatre praying for a permanent injunction (stay order) restraining the theatre from running the film named “Jai Santoshi Maa”. Her contention is that the film hurt her religious feelings and sentiments as Goddess Saraswati, Laxmi and Parvati were depicted as jealous and were ridiculed.- a)She cannot file a suit because injury to religious feelings is not a legally recognized right.
- b)She cannot file a suit because the Theatre has a fundamental right to speech and expression.
- c)She can file a suit as injury to religious feelings has been legally recognized as a right (injuria sine damnum).
- d)It is a case of complete judicial discretion.
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Ms. Usha wants to file a suit against Bhagyalaxmi Theatre praying for a permanent injunction (stay order) restraining the theatre from running the film named “Jai Santoshi Maa”. Her contention is that the film hurt her religious feelings and sentiments as Goddess Saraswati, Laxmi and Parvati were depicted as jealous and were ridiculed.
a)
She cannot file a suit because injury to religious feelings is not a legally recognized right.
b)
She cannot file a suit because the Theatre has a fundamental right to speech and expression.
c)
She can file a suit as injury to religious feelings has been legally recognized as a right (injuria sine damnum).
d)
It is a case of complete judicial discretion.
|
|
Dia Mehta answered |
This case belongs to nuisance, the leading case of Usha ben V bhagyalakshmi chitra mandir.
Principle: A master is liable for the acts committed by his servant in the course of employment.
Fact: “A” instructs his driver “B” to drive his vehicle from the office back to home. He is also instructed not to carry any unauthorized person in the car. “B” one day while driving empty car back to home picks up his friend, “C”, who stays close to A’s house. In the course of driving the car towards A’s house, he collides with a vehicle.”C” is injured in the accident. Is A liable to compensate to C?
- a)A shall not be liable, B was not in the course of employment when he took C inside the car.
- b)A shall be liable, because B was in the course of employment at the time of accident
- c)C got into the car at his own risk, and therefore, he cannot sue anybody.
- d)A shall not be liable, as he had instructed B not to give lift to unauthorized persons.
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Principle: A master is liable for the acts committed by his servant in the course of employment.
Fact: “A” instructs his driver “B” to drive his vehicle from the office back to home. He is also instructed not to carry any unauthorized person in the car. “B” one day while driving empty car back to home picks up his friend, “C”, who stays close to A’s house. In the course of driving the car towards A’s house, he collides with a vehicle.”C” is injured in the accident. Is A liable to compensate to C?
a)
A shall not be liable, B was not in the course of employment when he took C inside the car.
b)
A shall be liable, because B was in the course of employment at the time of accident
c)
C got into the car at his own risk, and therefore, he cannot sue anybody.
d)
A shall not be liable, as he had instructed B not to give lift to unauthorized persons.
|
Shefali mehta answered |
This principle states that if a servant commits an act while performing their job duties, the master (employer) is responsible for the consequences of that act. The fact presented in the question is missing, so it cannot be determined whether it is related to the principle or not.
PRINCIPLES: 1. If A is asked to do something by B, B is responsible for the act, not A.
2. If A, while acting for B commits a wrong, A is responsible for the wrong, not B.
3. If A is authorised to do something for B, but in the name of A without disclosing B’s presence, both A and B may be held liable.FACTS: Somu contracted with Amar whereunder Amar would buy a pumpset to be used in Somu’s farm. Such a pumpset was in short supply in the market. Gulab, a dealer, had such a pumpset and he refused to sell it to Amar. Amar threatened Gulab of serious consequences if he fails to part with the pumpset. Gulab filed a complaint against Amar.PROPOSED DECISION:(a) Amar alone is liable for the wrong though he acted for Somu.
(b) Amar is not liable for the wrong, though he is bound by the contract with Somu.
(c) Somu is bound by the contract and liable for the wrong.
(d) Both Somu and Amar are liable for the wrong.SUGGESTED REASONS:(i) Amar committed the wrong while acting for the benefit of Somu.
(ii) Amar cannot do while acting for Somu something which he cannot do while acting for himself.
(iii) Both Amar and Somu are liable since they are bound by the contract.
(iv) Somu has to be responsible for the act of Amar committed for Somu’s benefit.Your decision with the reason:- a)(c) (i)
- b)(a) (ii)
- c)(d) (iii)
- d)(b) (iv)
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
PRINCIPLES: 1. If A is asked to do something by B, B is responsible for the act, not A.
2. If A, while acting for B commits a wrong, A is responsible for the wrong, not B.
3. If A is authorised to do something for B, but in the name of A without disclosing B’s presence, both A and B may be held liable.
2. If A, while acting for B commits a wrong, A is responsible for the wrong, not B.
3. If A is authorised to do something for B, but in the name of A without disclosing B’s presence, both A and B may be held liable.
FACTS: Somu contracted with Amar whereunder Amar would buy a pumpset to be used in Somu’s farm. Such a pumpset was in short supply in the market. Gulab, a dealer, had such a pumpset and he refused to sell it to Amar. Amar threatened Gulab of serious consequences if he fails to part with the pumpset. Gulab filed a complaint against Amar.
PROPOSED DECISION:
(a) Amar alone is liable for the wrong though he acted for Somu.
(b) Amar is not liable for the wrong, though he is bound by the contract with Somu.
(c) Somu is bound by the contract and liable for the wrong.
(d) Both Somu and Amar are liable for the wrong.
(b) Amar is not liable for the wrong, though he is bound by the contract with Somu.
(c) Somu is bound by the contract and liable for the wrong.
(d) Both Somu and Amar are liable for the wrong.
SUGGESTED REASONS:
(i) Amar committed the wrong while acting for the benefit of Somu.
(ii) Amar cannot do while acting for Somu something which he cannot do while acting for himself.
(iii) Both Amar and Somu are liable since they are bound by the contract.
(iv) Somu has to be responsible for the act of Amar committed for Somu’s benefit.
(ii) Amar cannot do while acting for Somu something which he cannot do while acting for himself.
(iii) Both Amar and Somu are liable since they are bound by the contract.
(iv) Somu has to be responsible for the act of Amar committed for Somu’s benefit.
Your decision with the reason:
a)
(c) (i)
b)
(a) (ii)
c)
(d) (iii)
d)
(b) (iv)
|
|
Anaya Patel answered |
The correct option is B.
Amar is sole responsibility and it was on his discretion to avoid such a threat to gulab.
If a newspaper published a defamatory article written by `X’, who can be sued?- a)Publisher of that newspaper
- b)Printer of that newspaper
- c)Mr. X only
- d)Mr. X, Printer, Publisher and Editor
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
If a newspaper published a defamatory article written by `X’, who can be sued?
a)
Publisher of that newspaper
b)
Printer of that newspaper
c)
Mr. X only
d)
Mr. X, Printer, Publisher and Editor
|
|
Faizan Khan answered |
If the statement is made in writing and published, the defamation is called "libel". If the statement , being hurtful, is spoken, the statement is "slander". In the above situation, the publisher of the newspaper published the defamatory article, hence he has committed libel.
Principle: If a professional doesn’t take care like an ordinary prudent person, he is guilty of negligence and shall have to pay compensation to those who suffer.Fact: Kapoor, a businessman appointed a surgeon Dr. K.S. Pratap for completing surgery to remove deformation in the leg of his son, Amit. During the surgery an attendant nurse left a small needle inside, which resulted in a serious abyss requiring second operation. After the second operation, leg was shortened. Has the doctor committed any wrong?- a)No, he has not committed any wrong; it was the nurse who was negligent.
- b)No, he has not committed any wrong; as such lapses are common in surgeries.
- c)Yes, the doctor is guilty of medical negligence, as there is absence of due care
- d)Yes, both the doctor as well as the nurse is liable
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Principle: If a professional doesn’t take care like an ordinary prudent person, he is guilty of negligence and shall have to pay compensation to those who suffer.
Fact: Kapoor, a businessman appointed a surgeon Dr. K.S. Pratap for completing surgery to remove deformation in the leg of his son, Amit. During the surgery an attendant nurse left a small needle inside, which resulted in a serious abyss requiring second operation. After the second operation, leg was shortened. Has the doctor committed any wrong?
a)
No, he has not committed any wrong; it was the nurse who was negligent.
b)
No, he has not committed any wrong; as such lapses are common in surgeries.
c)
Yes, the doctor is guilty of medical negligence, as there is absence of due care
d)
Yes, both the doctor as well as the nurse is liable
|
|
Dia Mehta answered |
The nurse works under the duty of the doctor So for the negligence of the nurse, Doctor will be HELD VICARIOUSLY liable.
Assertion (A) When right of a private individual has been infringed by other individual, it is called tort.Reason (R) When right of public at large has been infringed it is called crime.- a)Both A and R are true but R is not correct explanation of A
- b)Both A and R are true and R is correct explanation of A
- c)Both A and R are false
- d)A is true R is false
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Assertion (A) When right of a private individual has been infringed by other individual, it is called tort.
Reason (R) When right of public at large has been infringed it is called crime.
a)
Both A and R are true but R is not correct explanation of A
b)
Both A and R are true and R is correct explanation of A
c)
Both A and R are false
d)
A is true R is false
|
|
Shivangi dasgupta answered |
Explanation:
• Tort is a civil wrong that results in loss or harm to an individual or property. It is an infringement of a person's private rights, i.e. rights that are not owed to the public at large but to a specific individual or group of individuals.
• Crime, on the other hand, is a public wrong that results in harm to the society as a whole. It is an infringement of a person's public rights, i.e. rights that are owed to the public at large.
• Therefore, the assertion (A) is true as tort is indeed an infringement of a private individual's right.
• However, the reason (R) is not a correct explanation of A as it talks about a different concept altogether, i.e. crime. Therefore, option A is the correct answer.
• Tort is a civil wrong that results in loss or harm to an individual or property. It is an infringement of a person's private rights, i.e. rights that are not owed to the public at large but to a specific individual or group of individuals.
• Crime, on the other hand, is a public wrong that results in harm to the society as a whole. It is an infringement of a person's public rights, i.e. rights that are owed to the public at large.
• Therefore, the assertion (A) is true as tort is indeed an infringement of a private individual's right.
• However, the reason (R) is not a correct explanation of A as it talks about a different concept altogether, i.e. crime. Therefore, option A is the correct answer.
PRINCIPLE: An employer is liable for the negligence of his employee. But an employer is not liable for the negligence of his employee, if the victim of such negligence is one of his other employees.FACTS: A and B were working in factory as unskilled labourers. A was carrying a basket of stones on his head. B was sitting on the ground. When A crossed B, all of a sudden a stone fell down from the basket and hit B on his head. B died immediately.- a)The owner of the factory will be liable.
- b)A and the owner of the factory shall be jointly liable.
- c)The owner of the factory will not be liable.
- d)None of the above.
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
PRINCIPLE: An employer is liable for the negligence of his employee. But an employer is not liable for the negligence of his employee, if the victim of such negligence is one of his other employees.
FACTS: A and B were working in factory as unskilled labourers. A was carrying a basket of stones on his head. B was sitting on the ground. When A crossed B, all of a sudden a stone fell down from the basket and hit B on his head. B died immediately.
a)
The owner of the factory will be liable.
b)
A and the owner of the factory shall be jointly liable.
c)
The owner of the factory will not be liable.
d)
None of the above.
|
|
Aryan Khanna answered |
Explanation:
The correct answer is C: The owner of the factory will not be liable.
Reasoning:
- According to the principle, an employer is liable for the negligence of his employee. In this case, A was the employee who was negligent by allowing the stone to fall from the basket.
- However, the principle also states that an employer is not liable for the negligence of his employee if the victim of such negligence is one of his other employees. In this case, B was also an employee of the factory.
- Since B was an employee of the factory, the owner of the factory will not be liable for the negligence of A that led to B's death.
Therefore, the owner of the factory will not be liable for the negligence of A that caused the death of B.
PRINCIPLE: The transferor of goods cannot pass a better title than what he himself possesses.FACTS: X sells a stolen bike to Y. Y buys it in good faith.As regards the title to bike which of the following derivations is CORRECT?- a)The real owner cannot get back the bike from Y.
- b)Y will get no title as transferor’s (X‟s) title was defective.
- c)Y will get good title as he is a bona fide buyer.
- d)Y will get good title, as has not committed any wrong (stolen the bik
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
PRINCIPLE: The transferor of goods cannot pass a better title than what he himself possesses.
FACTS: X sells a stolen bike to Y. Y buys it in good faith.As regards the title to bike which of the following derivations is CORRECT?
a)
The real owner cannot get back the bike from Y.
b)
Y will get no title as transferor’s (X‟s) title was defective.
c)
Y will get good title as he is a bona fide buyer.
d)
Y will get good title, as has not committed any wrong (stolen the bik
|
|
Anaya Patel answered |
Y will not get the title of that product because transfer, as well as ownership, is unlawful, it doesn't matter intention lies or not.
hence x will be totally guilty for forgery and misrepresentation..
X actually beats B with a stick. He has committed the offence of………………….- a)Assault
- b)Battery
- c)grievous hurt
- d)hurt
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
X actually beats B with a stick. He has committed the offence of………………….
a)
Assault
b)
Battery
c)
grievous hurt
d)
hurt
|
Divisha rane answered |
Explanation:
Assault: Assault refers to the act of intentionally causing apprehension of harm or offensive contact in another person's mind. It does not require physical contact.
Battery: Battery refers to the act of intentionally and unlawfully causing physical contact or injury to another person without their consent.
In the given scenario, X beats B with a stick. This implies that there was physical contact and B was injured. Therefore, X has committed the offence of battery.
Key Points:
- X's action of beating B with a stick involves physical contact, which is a key element of battery.
- Battery requires intentional and unlawful physical contact, which is present in this situation.
- The act of beating someone with a stick without their consent is considered a criminal offence.
- The offence of battery can range from minor injuries to severe harm, depending on the extent of the injuries caused.
- Battery is a more specific offence compared to assault, as it involves physical contact and harm, whereas assault can be committed without physical contact.
In conclusion, X's actions of beating B with a stick fulfill the necessary elements of battery. Therefore, the correct answer is option 'B' - Battery.
Assault: Assault refers to the act of intentionally causing apprehension of harm or offensive contact in another person's mind. It does not require physical contact.
Battery: Battery refers to the act of intentionally and unlawfully causing physical contact or injury to another person without their consent.
In the given scenario, X beats B with a stick. This implies that there was physical contact and B was injured. Therefore, X has committed the offence of battery.
Key Points:
- X's action of beating B with a stick involves physical contact, which is a key element of battery.
- Battery requires intentional and unlawful physical contact, which is present in this situation.
- The act of beating someone with a stick without their consent is considered a criminal offence.
- The offence of battery can range from minor injuries to severe harm, depending on the extent of the injuries caused.
- Battery is a more specific offence compared to assault, as it involves physical contact and harm, whereas assault can be committed without physical contact.
In conclusion, X's actions of beating B with a stick fulfill the necessary elements of battery. Therefore, the correct answer is option 'B' - Battery.
Principle: A master is liable for the acts committed by his servant in the course of employment.Fact: “A” instructs his driver “B” to drive his vehicle from the office back to home. He is also instructed not to carry any unauthorized person in the car. “B” one day while driving empty car back to home picks up his friend, “C”, who stays close to A’s house. In thecourse of driving the car towards A’s house, he collides with a vehicle.”C” is injured in the accident. Is A liable to compensate to C?- a)A shall be liable, because B was in the course of employment at the time of accident
- b)A shall not be liable, B was not in the course of employment when he took C inside the car.
- c)C got into the car at his own risk, and therefore, he cannot sue anybody.
- d)A shall not be liable, as he had instructed B not to give lift to unauthorized persons.
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Principle: A master is liable for the acts committed by his servant in the course of employment.
Fact: “A” instructs his driver “B” to drive his vehicle from the office back to home. He is also instructed not to carry any unauthorized person in the car. “B” one day while driving empty car back to home picks up his friend, “C”, who stays close to A’s house. In the
course of driving the car towards A’s house, he collides with a vehicle.”C” is injured in the accident. Is A liable to compensate to C?
a)
A shall be liable, because B was in the course of employment at the time of accident
b)
A shall not be liable, B was not in the course of employment when he took C inside the car.
c)
C got into the car at his own risk, and therefore, he cannot sue anybody.
d)
A shall not be liable, as he had instructed B not to give lift to unauthorized persons.
|
Megha Patel answered |
As while driving he was in the course of action it no matter whether master expressly prohibited his servant or not be have to check that only whether the person is in course of employment or not
Legal principle: whoever uses force without any lawful justification is deemed to commit battery
Facts: Mary and Maya have an argument over an issue in the classroom. In order to take revenge over this Mary tries to humiliate maya in front of the other classmates by pulling the chair the moment she is about to sit on the chair. Though maya falls, she is not hurt. However she files a case against mary for battery.
Q. Is mary liable?
- a)mary is not liable because maya was not hurt
- b)mary is not liable because their argument justified her action
- c)mary is not liable because it did not require any force to pull the chair out before maya sat
- d)mary is not liable because her action is not justified
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Legal principle: whoever uses force without any lawful justification is deemed to commit battery
Facts: Mary and Maya have an argument over an issue in the classroom. In order to take revenge over this Mary tries to humiliate maya in front of the other classmates by pulling the chair the moment she is about to sit on the chair. Though maya falls, she is not hurt. However she files a case against mary for battery.
Q. Is mary liable?
Q. Is mary liable?
a)
mary is not liable because maya was not hurt
b)
mary is not liable because their argument justified her action
c)
mary is not liable because it did not require any force to pull the chair out before maya sat
d)
mary is not liable because her action is not justified
|
|
Priyansh Agarwal answered |
Option D here mentioned is wrong. Correct option D is - Mary is liable because her action is not justified. You can find the exact question in the book A. P. Bhardwaj. Criminal law (pg-8.139).question number 454.
The Railway authorities allowed a train to be over-crowded. In consequence, a legitimate passenger, Mr. X got his pocket picked. Choose appropriate answer-- a)Mr. X can sue the railway authorities for the loss suffered.
- b)Mr. X cannot sue because he had given his consent to travel in over-crowded train.
- c)Mr. X cannot sue the railway authorities because there was no infringement of legal right and mere fact that the loss was caused does not give to a cause of action.
- d)None of the above.
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
The Railway authorities allowed a train to be over-crowded. In consequence, a legitimate passenger, Mr. X got his pocket picked. Choose appropriate answer-
a)
Mr. X can sue the railway authorities for the loss suffered.
b)
Mr. X cannot sue because he had given his consent to travel in over-crowded train.
c)
Mr. X cannot sue the railway authorities because there was no infringement of legal right and mere fact that the loss was caused does not give to a cause of action.
d)
None of the above.
|
|
Aryan Khanna answered |
Answer: CExplanation:- Mr. X cannot sue the railway authorities because there was no infringement of legal right and mere fact that the loss was caused does not give rise to a cause of action. - The railway authorities may be responsible for allowing the train to be overcrowded, but the act of pocket-picking was committed by a third party, not the railway authorities. - There is no legal duty on the part of the railway authorities to prevent or guarantee against pickpocketing, as it is an unforeseen criminal act. - Mr. X's consent to travel in an overcrowded train does not come into play in this situation, as the issue at hand is the pickpocketing incident.In conclusion, while it is unfortunate that Mr. X had his pocket picked, he cannot sue the railway authorities for the loss suffered as there was no infringement of a legal right by the railway authorities in this case.
PRINCIPLE: A tort-feasor (wrong-doer) is liable if intended consequences of his act are evidently foreseeable.FACTS: Marcus threw an ignited missile into a crowded market place. The fiery missile came down the shed of a vendor of ginger bread who in order to protect himself, caught it dexterously and threw it away from him. It then fell on the shed of another merchant, who in order to protect himself passed it on precisely in the same way, till at last it burst in Brutus’s face and put his eye out. Brutus sued Marcus. Decide.- a)Marcus is not liable as he did not foresee the injury suffered by Brutus.
- b)Marcus is liable as he intentionally threw the missile into the market place.
- c)Marcus is not liable as it was the merchant who ultimately threw the missile on Brutus.
- d)Marcus is not liable as the injury suffered by Brutus is of a remote consequence.
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
PRINCIPLE: A tort-feasor (wrong-doer) is liable if intended consequences of his act are evidently foreseeable.
FACTS: Marcus threw an ignited missile into a crowded market place. The fiery missile came down the shed of a vendor of ginger bread who in order to protect himself, caught it dexterously and threw it away from him. It then fell on the shed of another merchant, who in order to protect himself passed it on precisely in the same way, till at last it burst in Brutus’s face and put his eye out. Brutus sued Marcus. Decide.
a)
Marcus is not liable as he did not foresee the injury suffered by Brutus.
b)
Marcus is liable as he intentionally threw the missile into the market place.
c)
Marcus is not liable as it was the merchant who ultimately threw the missile on Brutus.
d)
Marcus is not liable as the injury suffered by Brutus is of a remote consequence.
|
|
Cibin Cibi answered |
Here, Marcus throws the ignited missile wantedly into the crowd as in the other cases it is given that the other shopkeepers did it to save themselves so Marcus is liable for his act.
PRINCIPLE: A person has no legal remedy for an injury caused by an act to which he has consented.FACTS: R, a cricket enthusiast, purchases a ticket to watch a T20 match organized by the Indian Premier League (IPL). During the match, a ball struck for six hits R on his body and injures him. He sues IPL for compensation for the medical expenses. Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?- a)R should be compensated as he purchased the ticket to get entertainment and not get injured.
- b)R would fail in his action, as he voluntarily exposed himself to the risk.
- c)IPL would be liable as it did not ensure that the spectators were protected from the risk of such injuries.
- d)None of the above.
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
PRINCIPLE: A person has no legal remedy for an injury caused by an act to which he has consented.
FACTS: R, a cricket enthusiast, purchases a ticket to watch a T20 match organized by the Indian Premier League (IPL). During the match, a ball struck for six hits R on his body and injures him. He sues IPL for compensation for the medical expenses. Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?
a)
R should be compensated as he purchased the ticket to get entertainment and not get injured.
b)
R would fail in his action, as he voluntarily exposed himself to the risk.
c)
IPL would be liable as it did not ensure that the spectators were protected from the risk of such injuries.
d)
None of the above.
|
|
Sajal Bdw answered |
The correct answer will be B because by buying ticket of IPL R has given the consent of any risk
PRINCIPLE: A master is liable for the acts committed by his servant in the course of employment.FACTS: Sanjay is a driver working in Brooke bond and co. one day, the Manager asked him to drop a customer at the airport and get back at the earliest. On his way back from the airport, he happened to see his fiancé Ruhina waiting for a bus to go home. He offered to drop her at home, which happened to be close to his office. She got into the car and soon thereafter; the car somersaulted due to the negligence to Sanjay. Ruhina was thrown out of the car suffered multiple injuries. She seeks compensation from Brooke bond and Co.- a)Brooke bond and Co. shall be liable, because Sanjay was in the course of employment at the time of accident.
- b)Brooke bond and Co. Shall not be liable, Sanjay was not in the course of employment when he took Ruhina inside the car.
- c)Ruhina got into the car at her own risk, and therefore, she cannot sue anybody.
- d)None of the above
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
PRINCIPLE: A master is liable for the acts committed by his servant in the course of employment.
FACTS: Sanjay is a driver working in Brooke bond and co. one day, the Manager asked him to drop a customer at the airport and get back at the earliest. On his way back from the airport, he happened to see his fiancé Ruhina waiting for a bus to go home. He offered to drop her at home, which happened to be close to his office. She got into the car and soon thereafter; the car somersaulted due to the negligence to Sanjay. Ruhina was thrown out of the car suffered multiple injuries. She seeks compensation from Brooke bond and Co.
a)
Brooke bond and Co. shall be liable, because Sanjay was in the course of employment at the time of accident.
b)
Brooke bond and Co. Shall not be liable, Sanjay was not in the course of employment when he took Ruhina inside the car.
c)
Ruhina got into the car at her own risk, and therefore, she cannot sue anybody.
d)
None of the above
|
Mrunalini Vengurlekar answered |
Sanjay was coming back from doing a task given to him by his employer, and reporting back to his office was part of the task. So, whatever he does during the time we established as his course of employment, the company is liable for.
Principle – Whoever stores a substance which would cause damage on escape shall be strictly liable (i.e., liable even when he has exercised necessary care) for any damage caused by the escape of that substance.Facts – Cobalamine Co. is a manufacturer of hydrogen peroxide which has several industrial uses, but is also dangerous. The Company has one of its factories set up in Dimapur, a small district. While transporting the hydrogen peroxide from that factory to another place in huge containers, the engine of the truck carrying the chemical got overheated, and this triggered an explosion of the concentrated hydrogen peroxide. The truck driver, and several other people on the road were grievously injured. The reaction was shortly contained by an expert team, and investigations revealed that reasonable precautions had been taken to prevent such a mishap.Q. Will Cobalamine be liable to pay damages to those injured?- a)No, Cobalamine would not be liable, as they had taken reasonable precautions to prevent the mishap.
- b)The factory authorities at Dimapur would be liable, not Cobalamine.
- c)Cobalamine would be liable as hydrogen peroxide is a dangerous substance and its escape fixes liability, despite the taking of reasonable precautions.
- d)Both (b) and (c).
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Principle – Whoever stores a substance which would cause damage on escape shall be strictly liable (i.e., liable even when he has exercised necessary care) for any damage caused by the escape of that substance.
Facts – Cobalamine Co. is a manufacturer of hydrogen peroxide which has several industrial uses, but is also dangerous. The Company has one of its factories set up in Dimapur, a small district. While transporting the hydrogen peroxide from that factory to another place in huge containers, the engine of the truck carrying the chemical got overheated, and this triggered an explosion of the concentrated hydrogen peroxide. The truck driver, and several other people on the road were grievously injured. The reaction was shortly contained by an expert team, and investigations revealed that reasonable precautions had been taken to prevent such a mishap.
Q. Will Cobalamine be liable to pay damages to those injured?
a)
No, Cobalamine would not be liable, as they had taken reasonable precautions to prevent the mishap.
b)
The factory authorities at Dimapur would be liable, not Cobalamine.
c)
Cobalamine would be liable as hydrogen peroxide is a dangerous substance and its escape fixes liability, despite the taking of reasonable precautions.
d)
Both (b) and (c).
|
|
Nishtha Pandey answered |
The principle itself justifies the ans as hydrogen peroxide is a dangerous substance n causes damage when escapes so yes cobalamine would be liable
In an action for trespass, burden to prove justification is on the…………………….- a)defendant
- b)plaintiff
- c)either a or b
- d)Both a and b
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
In an action for trespass, burden to prove justification is on the…………………….
a)
defendant
b)
plaintiff
c)
either a or b
d)
Both a and b
|
|
Dia Mehta answered |
In negligent commission of trespass to person, plaintiff need to proof that injuries so complaint of are reasonably foreseeable. In case of direct trespass or intentional trespass proof of actual damage is not necessary but in negligent torts, proof of damage becomes essential.
PRINCIPLE: Qui facit per alium facit per se, i.e., he who does things through others does it himself.
FACTS: Nisha, the owner of a car, asked her friend Saurabh to take her car and drive the same to her office. As the car was near her office, it hit a pedestrian Srikant on account of Saurabh’s negligent driving and injured him seriously. Now, Srikant files a suit for damages against Nisha.
- a)Nisha is not liable as it was the negligence of Saurabh
- b)Saurabh is solely liable as Nisha was not driving the car
- c)Nisha is liable as Saurabh was driving under her authority and for her purpose.
- d)Saurabh will be exempted from liability under the principle of inevitable accident
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
PRINCIPLE: Qui facit per alium facit per se, i.e., he who does things through others does it himself.
FACTS: Nisha, the owner of a car, asked her friend Saurabh to take her car and drive the same to her office. As the car was near her office, it hit a pedestrian Srikant on account of Saurabh’s negligent driving and injured him seriously. Now, Srikant files a suit for damages against Nisha.
a)
Nisha is not liable as it was the negligence of Saurabh
b)
Saurabh is solely liable as Nisha was not driving the car
c)
Nisha is liable as Saurabh was driving under her authority and for her purpose.
d)
Saurabh will be exempted from liability under the principle of inevitable accident
|
|
Dia Mehta answered |
The principle “Qui facit per alium facit per se” means that a person is responsible for the actions of others performed on their behalf. In this case, Nisha asked Saurabh to drive her car to her office. Therefore, even though Saurabh was the one driving, Nisha is responsible for his actions because he was acting under her authority and for her purpose. As a result, Nisha would be liable for the damages caused by Saurabh’s negligent driving.
Chapter doubts & questions for Law of Torts - 4 Months Preparation Course for CLAT UG 2025 is part of CLAT exam preparation. The chapters have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. The Chapter doubts & questions, notes, tests & MCQs are made for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, notes, meanings, examples, exercises, MCQs and online tests here.
Chapter doubts & questions of Law of Torts - 4 Months Preparation Course for CLAT UG in English & Hindi are available as part of CLAT exam.
Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.
4 Months Preparation Course for CLAT UG
283 videos|1003 docs|331 tests
|
|
© EduRev
|
Education Revolution
|
|
Signup to see your scores
go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup