Law Of Tort Test-10

50 Questions MCQ Test Legal Reasoning for CLAT | Law Of Tort Test-10

This mock test of Law Of Tort Test-10 for CLAT helps you for every CLAT entrance exam. This contains 50 Multiple Choice Questions for CLAT Law Of Tort Test-10 (mcq) to study with solutions a complete question bank. The solved questions answers in this Law Of Tort Test-10 quiz give you a good mix of easy questions and tough questions. CLAT students definitely take this Law Of Tort Test-10 exercise for a better result in the exam. You can find other Law Of Tort Test-10 extra questions, long questions & short questions for CLAT on EduRev as well by searching above.

PRINCIPLE: When a person voluntarily agrees to suffer some harm, he is not allowed to complain for that.

FACTS: A was one of the spectators at a formula one car race, being held at Gurgaon, on a track owned by One M Company. During the race, there was a collision between two racing cars, one of which was thrown away amidst spectators, thereby causing an injury to A. A claims damage for the injuries caused to him.


PRINCIPLE: An interest which is created on a transfer of property and depends upon the fulfillment of a condition will fail if the fulfillment of the condition is impossible or is forbidden by law or is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law or is fraudulent or involves or implies injury to the person or property of another or the court regards it as immoral or opposed to public policy.

FACTS: A gives Rs. 10 Lakh to B on condition that B shall marry A’s daughter C. On the date on which A gave Rs. 10 Lakh to B, C was dead.


PRINCIPLE: Nothing is an offence merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm, if it be done without any criminal intention to cause harm and in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to a person or property.

FACTS: Mr. Sharman, the Italian captain of a steam vessel, suddenly and without any fault or negligence on his part, finds himself near the Kochi coast in such a position that before he can stop his vessel, he must inevitably run down a boat B with twenty or thirty passengers on board, unless he changes the course of his vessel, and that by changing his course, he must incur risk of running down a boat C with only two passengers on board, which he may possibly clear. Whether Sharman has committed an offence?


PRINCIPLE: Ignorance of Fact is excused but ignorance of law is no excuse

FACTS: X was a passenger from Zurich to Manila in a Swiss Plane. When the plane landed at the Airport of Bombay on 28 Nov. 1962 it was found on searching that X carried 34 kg of Gold Bars on his person and that he had not declared it in the ‘Manifest for Transit’. On 26th Nov. 1962 the Government of India had issued a notification modifying its earlier exemption, making it mandatory now that the gold must be declared in the “Manifest” of the aircraft.


Ramu applied for the post of Director in an organization. The governing body of the organization passed a resolution appointing him to the post. After the meeting, one of the members of the governing body informed him privately of the resolution. Subsequently, the resolution was rescinded. Ramu claims damages. Which one of the following is the correct legal proposition in the case?


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.


PRINCIPLES: 1. Consumable goods which are not fit for consumption are not marketable.
2. A consumer shall not suffer on account of unmarketable goods.
3. A seller is liable for knowingly selling unmarketable goods.
4. A manufacturer shall be liable for the quality of his products.

FACTS: Ram bought a Coca Cola bottle from Shama’s shop. Back at home, the server opened the bottle and poured the drink into the glasses of Ram and his friend Tom. As Tom started drinking, he felt irritation in his throat. Immediately, Ram and Tom took the sample to test and found nitric acid in the content. Ram filed a suit against Shama, Coca Cola company and the bottler, Kishan and Co.


a. Ram cannot get compensation
b. Tom can get compensation
c.  Both Ram and Tom can get compensation


i. Shama did not know the contents of sealed bottle.
ii. Ram did not actually suffer though he bought the bottle.
iii. Tom did not buy the bottle.
iv. Coca Cola company is responsible since it supplied the concentrate.
v. Kishen & Co, is responsible since it added water, sugar, etc., and sealed the bottle.
vi. Shama is responsible for selling the defective product. 

Your decision with the reason:


The correct option is C.

 A manufacturer shall be liable for the quality of his products.


 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.


(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.


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:


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.

Nandan was appointed by Syndicate Bank to collect small savings from its customer spread over the different places on daily basis. Nagamana, a housemaid, was one of such customers making use of Nandan’s service. Syndicate Bank after a couple of years terminated Nandari’s service. Nagamana, unaware of this fact, was handing over her savings to Nandan who misappropriated them. Nagamana realized this nearly after three months, when she went to the Bank to withdraw money. She filed a complain against 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 Reason
i) Nandan was not acting in the course of employmeht after the termination of his service.
ii) A person cannot blame others for his own negligence.
iii) Nagamna was entitled to be informed by the bank about Nandan                                                        iv)The Bank is entitled to expect its customers to know actual position


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


Which of the following interests is not protected by the law of tort?


As an element of the tort of defamation, publication means that


The correct option is B

Publication - For a statement to be published, a third party (someone other than the person making the statement or the subject of the statement) must have seen, heard or read the defamatory statement. That means a record of a statement has been made.


Assertion: No action lies for mere damage caused by some act which does not violate a legal right

Reason: An action lies for interference with another legal right even where it causes no actual damage


The correct option is C

both the statements are independently correct but R is not the explanation of A.


Which of the following correctly identifies the remedies not available to the victim in case of false imprisonment?


The correct option is D.

As under false imprisonment in torts, following remedies are available to the victim

Action for loss,Nominal and compensatory damages,Punitive, exemplary and aggravated losses,Habeas corpus,Self help. 

And all the following are mentioned in the options given. So there is remedy in the options that is not available to the victim of false imprisonment.


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?


The owner of the bus is vicariously liable for the actions of his agents.


The last opportunity principle is related to the


The correct option is D.
Under this doctrine, a negligent plaintiff can nonetheless recover if he is able to show that the defendant had the last opportunity to avoid the accident. Conversely, a defendant can also use this doctrine as a defense. If the plaintiff has the last clear chance to avoid the accident, the defendant will not be liable.


In which one of the following situations A will be liable for defamation? A writes a letter containing a defamatory matter about B andKeeps it in a sealed envelope with himself


Defamation is the general term for a legal claim involving injury to one's reputation caused by a false statement of fact and includes both libel (defamation in written or fixed form) and slander (spoken defamation).

In this case a defamatory statement is written about B. but it is a sealed envelope. Defamation includes that the third party must have heard or recorded the statement. Here if A sends the letter to B. It will not be a defamation as there is no loss of B’s reputation and moreover its a sealed envelope. But if he tend s to send to someone else 

, ( say B’s wife ) then it will be defamation and A will be liable.


When a master A has lent only the labour of his servant to another master B, who of the following is/are liable for the wrongful acts of the servant?


The correct option is C.

According to the principle of vicarious liability under law of torts, the real master is vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of the servant, unless and until there is an express contract contrary to it.


Principle: A person is entitled to protect his property by using lawful means.

Facts: Ramlal is growing valuable vegetables and fruits in his farm and he has fenced the farm to prevent the cattle from entering into it. In addition he has kept a ferocious dog to chase away intruding urchins and cattles. Some children were playing in a nearby playground and the ball slipped into the farm. A boy running after the ball came near the fence and shouted for the ball. When there was no response, he managed to creep into the farm to get the ball. The dog which was surreptitiously waiting attacked the boy and badly mauled him. The boy's parents filed a suit against Ramlal.


Principle: `Volenti non fit injuria', a well-established legal principle, means that a person has no legal remedy for the injury caused by an act which he has consented.

Situation: An old man was walking in a narrow one-way lane in the opposite direction. It was night-time and there was no street lighting. A car moving in right direction but without headlights knocked him down since the driver could not see him. He filed a suit against the driver.


The correct option is C.
the lady was walking on a one way lane and as such there are no traffic rules applicable to pedestrians. Now, the car driver was driving his car without headlights, which is a gross violation on his part. Therefore, he is liable to the old lady because had he driven the car with headlights on, he could have averted the collision. The Doctrine of last opportunity applies here.


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.


The correct option is B.
As Ravi asked the driver to drive fast but not to exceed the speed.


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.

Give the appropriate answer-


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 : here 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 : 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 : 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 : 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’.


A person is said to be vicariously liable when:


Principle: A master shall be responsible for the wrongful acts of his servants in the course of his employment.

Facts: The Syndicate Bank was running a small savings scheme under which its authorized agents would go round and collect small savings from several people on a daily basis. These agents would get commission, on the deposits so collected. Ananth was one such agent, collecting deposits from factory workers engaged on daily wages. Though he regularly carried on his business for some time, slowly he started appropriating deposits for his personal use and one day he just disappeared. One Fatima, who had been handing over her savings to him found that nearly for a month before his disappearance, he was not depositing her savings at all. The bank, when approached, took the stand that Ananth was not its regular and paid employee and, therefore, it was not responsible for his misconduct. She filed a suit against the bank.


Principle: A person is liable for all the injuries caused on account of consequences of his careless act.

Facts: Ram, a snake charmer, was exhibiting his talents to a group of people. One of the snakes escaped and bit a child who had to be hospitalized for two days for treatment.


LEGAL PRINCIPLE: If there is infringement of legal right of a person, he can sue under torts for compensation even if he has not suffered any harm or loss of a single penny.

FACTUAL SITUATION: Mr. B, a bank manager refuses to honour a cheque presented by C, a customer. He knows that C has sufficient funds in his account. Can C sue B under torts and claim compensation?


LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Violation of a legal Right, with or without damage, give rise to a tort

FACTUAL SITUATION: ‘A’ establishes a coaching class and charge ‘5000 per year as fees. A’s neighbour ‘B’ establishes another coaching class thereby creating a competition. This forces A to reduce his fees to ‘3000 per year.QUESTION: Can ‘A’ claim damages from ‘B’ for the loss caused to him?


LEGAL PRINCIPLE: No remedy for the injury caused by an act; to which one has voluntarily consented.         

FACTUAL SITUATION: In an exhibition cricket match, Sachin hit a full toss delivery of Shane Bond over the fence for a six. The ball fell on the head of Egghead, a spectator, and severely injured him. Egghead had purchased a ticket costing 1000 to watch the match. Egghead and the organizers of the match are sworn enemies.           


LEGAL PRINCIPAL: Damage cannot be claimed against a risk to which consent has been given. The principal does not apply to rescue cases.

FACTUAL SITUATION : X and Y bought tickets to have a ringside view of a football match. During the course of the game a hard kick from one of the players caused the ball of hit X on his nose, causing bleeding and nausea. After half time the organizers allowed entry of more spectators than the seating capacity of the stadium. In the resulting stampede R and S who were watching the match since the beginning got injured. Five minutes before close of play, a part of the stadium rood broke loose. Y rushed to save children sitting beneath the roof and in the process injured herself. In separate actions filed by the injured persons, Decide           


LEGAL PRINCIPAL: Even if the sovereign functions of the State are discharged negligently the state is not vicariously liable in tort.

FACTUAL SITUATION: A was a trader in gold. There he was arrested by police and was detained in the police lock up after search. The gold with him along with sundry other things were seized. Later he was discharged. His possessions seized by the police were returned, except the gold. He moved against the State in tort. In the words of Supreme Court, “There can be no escape from the conclusion that the Police Officers were negligent in dealing with the property after it was seized” One of the Constables was a Muslim. He fled with gold to Pakistan.


Sovereign functions are those functions of the State which are inalienable in nature and cannot be performed by anyone else except the State itself. It includes defence and law and order. The State is not answerable for these functions before any court of law due to matters of public policy. In India, sovereign immunity is guaranteed by virtue of Article 300 of the Constitution of India, 1950. In the case of Kasturilal Ralia Ram Jain v State of UP involving the same set of facts, the Court held that the power to arrest a person and search and seizure are granted to the police via a statute, so they qualify as sovereign powers. Hence even if it is proved that the police officers were negligent during the course of employment, the State could not be made answerable for these acts. 


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


‘X’ with a view to murdering ‘Y’ enters ‘Y’ bedroom at night when ‘Y’ is out of station. What is ‘X’ guilty of?


Related tests