Test: Law Of Tort - 4 - CLAT MCQ

Legal Principle: Volenti non fit injuria means a person has no remedy against an injury caused by an act to which he has consented.

Situation: Ravi was in a hurry to get to the airport to catch the plane and he hired a taxi run by Sekhon Taxi Stand, well known in that locality. Ravi asked the driver to drive fast. In the city zone, there was a speed limit of 60 km per hours and the driver, rather reluctantly, drove quite fast at times 90 km per hour to reach the airport in time. As a result, the driver lost control and hit an obstacle and Ravi was badly injured. Ravi filed a suit against the taxi stand.

Principle: Every person has a right to defend his own person, property or possession against an immediate harm, and to that end, may use reasonable amount of force.

Situation: Mr. Rajesh was passing by Mrs. Saxena's house. At that time, Mrs. Saxena's dog ran out and bit Mr. Rajesh's overcoat. Mr. Rajesh turned around and raised the pistol at shot at the dog when the dog was running away. Mr. Rajesh. knew that the dog had attacked so many other people in that locality of Jammu.

Mrs. Saxena claims that her dog was of a rare breed and it was worth Rs. 5000. She is planning to bring a legal action against Mr. Rajesh for compensation.

Principle: A person cannot complain against a harm to which he has voluntarily consented. Precautions can be taken only against reasonably foreseeable mishaps.

Situation: At an athletic meet, during a hammer throw, the hammer came apart and hit a middle distance runner who was sitting 10 meters outside the throwing area. The runner sustained severe injuries on the head and neck. The runner filed a suit for damages. The standard precautions were taken for throwing the 7 kg hammer. The runner

(i) would be able to recover because the organizers had failed to keep the equipment in good condition.

(ii) would not be able to recover because the injuries were caused in a freak accident.

(iii) would not be able to recover because she had agreed to participate in the sports meet with all the expectant risks.

(iv) would not be able to recover because the accident was not reasonably foreseeable.

Principle: Injuria Sine Damnum i.e. Injury (violation of legal right) without damage

Facts: X, who was the returning officer at a polling booth in Amethi, wrongly refused to register a duly tendered vote of Y in the recent UP elections, even though Y was an eligible voter. The candidate in whose favour Y wanted to vote, was declared elected.

Principal : 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.

Principle: Vicarious liability is the liability the Master or Principal for the tort committed in the course of employment. The wrongs of the servant/agent

Facts : ‘X’ hands over some cash money at his house to ‘Y’, who is his (X’s) neighbor and is also cashier in a bank, to be deposited in A’s account in the bank. Instead of depositing the money, ‘Y’ misappropriates it.

Principle : Damage without the violation of a legal right is not actionable in a court of law. It the interference with the rights of another person is not unlawful or unauthorized, but a necessary consequence of the exercise of defendant’s own lawful rights, no action should lie.

Facts : There was an Established School (‘ES’) in a particular locality. Subsequently, a New school (‘NS’) was set up in the same locality, which charged lower fees, on account of which people started patronizing the new school. Because of the competition, ‘ES’ had to reduce its fees. ‘ES’ filed a case against ‘NS’ saying that ‘NS’ has caused it (‘ES’) financial loss and thus claimed compensation.

Principle : Whenever there is an invasion of a legal right, the person in whom the right is vested, is entitled to bring an action though he has suffered no actual loss or harm and may recover damages (compensation).

Facts : ‘A’ was a qualified voter for the Lok Sabha election. However, a returning officer wrongfully refused to take to take A’s vote. Inspite of such wrongful refusal, the candidate, for whom ‘A’ wanted to vote, won the election. But ‘A’ brought an action for damages.

Principal : 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.   

Principle : Master is liable for the wrongful acts committed by his servant; provided the acts are committed during the course of employment. However, the master is to liable if the wrongful act committed by his servant has no connection, whatsoever, with the servant’s contract of employment.

Facts : ‘D’ is a driver employed by ‘M’, who is the owner of a company, During the lunch time, ‘D’ goes to a close by tea shop to have a cup of tea. There he (‘D’) picks up fight with the tea shop owner (‘T’), which resulted in some damage to his shop. ‘T’ wants to sue ‘M’ for claiming compensation for the damage caused by the fight

Principle : The constitution of India guarantees the ‘right to life’, which means to life under the constitution, however, does not include the right to die.

Facts : ‘M’ who is 90, lives all alone as he has no family or children or grandchildren. He suffers from physical and mental distress, as there is no one to look after him. He has little means to foot his medical expenses. Under these circumstances, he should be granted the right to die with dignity because he does not want to be a burden on the society. Further, as it is his life, he has a right to put an end to it.

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

Principle: Nuisance is an unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment with it, if the interference is connection wrong is trespass; whereas, if the interference is ‘consequential’, it amounts to nuisance.

Facts ‘A’ plants a tree on his land. However, he allows its branches to project over the land of ‘B’.

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 intend 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 come on the way and took away S’s bicycle. The watchmen of the stand did not take care of it assuming that the bicycle was to parked inside the stand. ‘S’ filed a suit against ‘R’ for conversion.

Assertion (A): In the event of violation of any legal right (tort) the aggrieved party is entitled to recover unliquidated damages.

Reason (R): The object of awarding damages to the aggrieved party is to put him in the same position in which he would have been if the wrong would not have been committed. Damages are, therefore, assessed on that basis.

Assertion (A): The Constitution of India provides for the appointment of a Governor for a period of five years.

Reason (R): The Governor holds office during the pleasure of the President.

Which of the following acts invite tortuous liability and is not saved by the doctrine "volenti non fit injuria"?

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:

PRINCIPLES: 1. A master shall be liable for the fraudulent acts of his servants committed in the course of employment.
2. Whether an act is committed in the course of employment has to be judged in the context of the case.
3. Both master and third parties must exercise reasonable care in this regard.

FACTS: Rama Bhai was an uneducated widow and she opened an S.B. account with Syndicate Bank with the help of her nephew by name Keshav who was at that time working as a clerk in the Bank. Keshav used to deposit the money of Rama Bhai from time to time and get the entries done in the passbook. After a year or so, Keshav was dismissed from the service by the Bank. Being unaware of this fact, Rama Bhai continued to hand over her savings to him and Keshav misappropriated them. Rama Bhai realised this only when Keshav disappeared from the scene one day, and she sought compensation from the Bank.

POSSIBLE DECISIONS:

(a) Syndicate Bank shall be liable to compensate Rama Bhai.
(b) Syndicate Bank shall not be liable to compensate Rama Bhai.
(C) Rama Bhai cannot blame others for her negligence.

POSSIBLE REASONS:

(i) Keshav was not an employee of the Bank when the fraud was committed.
(ii) The Bank was not aware of the special arrangement between Rama Bhai and Keshav
(iii) It is the Bank’s duty to take care of vulnerable customers.
(iv) Rama Bhai should have checked about Keshav in her own interest.

Your decision with the reason:

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:

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:

B throws water on C with the intention of getting him wet. The action is

The term ‘Scienter’ is related to which one of the following sign boards

Assertion: H writes to his wife a letter, which contains defamatory matter about B. H is not liable to B for defamation

Reason: Communication of defamatory matter by a husband to his wife or vice versa is not a publication, for what passes between them is protected.

Assertion: Government cannot be held liable for the rots committed by its servant

Reason: A master is liable for the torts committed by his servant in the course of his employment

Assertion: A person can claim damages if he has sustained any loss monetary or otherwise

Reason: where there is infringement of a legal right, law allows compensation

The last opportunity principle is related to the: