Test: Introduction to Law of Torts - CLAT PG MCQ

A "wrongful act" can be either a positive action or a failure to act (omission). It may arise from negligence, intentional actions, or a breach of strict duty. For instance, failing to provide a safe environment can lead to liability for omission.

In tort cases, the measure of damages can vary widely and may include nominal or exemplary damages depending on the circumstances, whereas in breach of contract cases, damages are primarily awarded as compensation for the pecuniary loss suffered by the injured party. This distinction highlights how different legal principles apply to each type of case.

A key difference between tort law and breach of trust is that damages in tort cases are considered unliquidated, meaning they are not predetermined and depend on the specifics of the case, while damages in a breach of trust are liquidated and typically specified in the trust agreement. This distinction is important for understanding the nature of claims and remedies available in each legal area.

"Injuria sine damnum" involves the violation of a legal right without any actual loss, allowing for legal action. In contrast, "damnum sine injuria" involves actual loss without a breach of legal rights, meaning no legal recourse is available. This distinction is crucial in tort law.

In tort cases, the suit is filed by the injured or aggrieved party who seeks redress for the harm caused. This highlights the private nature of tort claims, unlike criminal cases where the state represents the interests of the community.

The primary remedy sought in tort cases is financial compensation, often referred to as damages. This serves to compensate the injured party for the harm suffered due to the wrongful act of another, thereby restoring them, as much as possible, to their original position before the tort occurred.

A plaintiff typically would not have a cause of action for damages when experiencing losses due to competition, as competition is generally accepted in business practices, and such losses do not constitute a legal injury. This principle is illustrated in cases where economic loss occurs without any infringement of legal rights.

Absolute rights are those rights where the violation itself constitutes a wrong, allowing the injured party to seek legal action without needing to demonstrate any further loss or injury. This characteristic makes them particularly strong in tort claims.

The principle "ubi jus ibi remedium" asserts that where there is a legal right, there must also be a remedy. This foundational concept in tort law emphasizes that individuals must be able to seek restitution for violations of their legal rights, reinforcing the interdependence of rights and legal recourse.

"Damnum sine injuria" means that a person can suffer a loss without any violation of legal rights and, therefore, cannot pursue legal action. This principle distinguishes between mere economic loss and actionable legal harm, underscoring that legal rights must be infringed for a claim to exist.

The fundamental components that constitute a tort include a wrongful act (which can be an action or omission), legal damage, and a breach of duty as defined by law. This triad ensures that a legal wrong can be recognized and addressed in court.

Salmond defines a tort as "a civil wrong for which the remedy is a common law action for unliquidated damages." This definition emphasizes that tort law is concerned with civil wrongs that can be remedied through financial compensation, distinguishing it from criminal law, which deals with public wrongs.

In tort cases, the injured party can withdraw the suit at any time, often through a compromise with the wrongdoer. In contrast, criminal cases cannot be withdrawn except under specific circumstances, as they represent the interests of society and the state.

Tort law deals with private wrongs that involve the infringement of individual rights, whereas criminal law addresses public wrongs that impact the community as a whole. This distinction is crucial for understanding the different legal processes and remedies involved in each area of law.

"Injuria sine damnum" refers to a situation where a legal right is violated without any actual loss or damage occurring. This principle allows a plaintiff to seek legal remedy even if they haven't suffered tangible harm, emphasizing the importance of legal rights in tort law.

The Law of Torts primarily focuses on providing financial compensation for violations of individual rights. It regulates behavior to ensure that individuals do not harm one another, whether intentionally or unintentionally. This branch of law is essential for protecting personal rights and ensuring justice for those who have suffered harm due to someone else's actions.

The principle of limitation in tort law establishes specific time limits within which an injured party must bring a legal action. This ensures that claims are made while evidence is still fresh and helps to maintain the integrity of the legal process by preventing stale claims.

The case of "Ashby v. White" demonstrates the principle of "actionable per se," where the plaintiff's legal right to vote was infringed despite not suffering any tangible loss. This case established that the violation of a legal right itself is sufficient for legal recourse.

In tort law, the duty is fixed by law itself and is owed to the community at large, while in contract law, the duty is determined by the specific agreements made between the parties involved. This fundamental difference underlines the nature of obligations in both areas of law.

Conditional rights are those where a violation does not automatically give rise to a cause of action unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that they suffered actual loss due to the violation. This differentiates them from absolute rights, where violation alone is sufficient for legal action.