Test: Law Of Tort - 3 - CLAT MCQ

The last opportunity principle is related to the:

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

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

Assertion: A wooden chair while being used by a guest caused injury to him to defective manufacture. The guest is entitled to claim damages from the maker.

Reason: Manufacture owes a duty of care to the ultimate user

Assertion: The plaintiff can sue all or any number of joint tort feasors

Reason: when several persons join in the commission of a tort is individually responsible as if each alone had committed it.

Assertion: A person, who moves to a place neared the place of nuisance can complain of nuisance

Reason: Coming to the place of nuisance is a good defence

Two or more person can be made joint tort-feasors, if they have:

A building was erected by the defendant, which caused diminution of light to two ground floor windows of the plaintiff house. Subsequently electric lights were always needed in the place. An action for damages can be brought on the ground

Liability in tort depends upon

A has grown a tree on his land. The branches of the tree are overhanging on the land of B. under the law B is entitled to:

The plaintiff, a lady visitor to a restaurant was injured by the ceiling fan which fell on her. The reason for the falling of the fan was a latent/hidden defect in the metal of the suspension rod of the fan. In an action against the defendant, he is:

A patient is brought to a hospital maintained by B. The patient is to be operated upon. If as a result of faulty oxygen supply machine, the patient dies on the operation table, then:

Which of the following correctly identifies the remedies available to the victim in case 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 last opportunity principle is related to the

LEGAL PRINCIPLE: A statement is defamatory in nature if it is injurious to a person's reputation and if the statement has been published.
FACTUAL SITUATION : Rudra had been dating a girl named Kiara for three weeks. But he had introduced himself to her as Ricky for the rest of their relationship. But ultimately the relationship ended badly and Kiara being upset and angry at Rudra started a website named 'ricky-thakur-is-a-jerk.com'. She created this website so as to warn other girls about 'Ricky Thakur'. The real Ricky Thakur files a suit for defamation. Decide.
DECISION:

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?

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.

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.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 : 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: 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?