Test: Law Of Tort - 1 - CLAT MCQ

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.

The Railway authorities allowed a train to be over-crowded. In consequence, a legitimate passenger, Mr. X got his pocket picked. Choose appropriate 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.

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.

Q. As regards the title to the bike which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

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.

Q. Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

In an action for trespass, burden to prove justification is on the…………………….

PRINCIPLE: Damage without the violation of a legal right is not actionable in a court of law. If the interference with the rights of another person is not unlawful or unauthorized, but a necessary consequence of the exercise of the 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 had caused it a financial loss and, thus, claimed compensation.

Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

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 A’s vote. In spite of such wrongful refusal, the candidate, for whom ‘A’ wanted to vote, won the election. But, ‘A’ brought an action for damages.

Q. Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

PRINCIPLE: In a civil action for defamation, the truth of the defamatory matter is an absolute defense. However, the burden of proving the 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.

Q. Under the circumstances, which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

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.

Q. Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

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?

PRINCIPLE: Whosoever by his act or omission causes environmental pollution shall be held liable for any loss caused by such pollution. It shall be no defence in such cases that all due diligence or reasonable care was taken while carrying out the act or omission in question.

FACTS: Hari is carrying on a chemical and fertilizer industry near a bank of a river. In order to prevent and control any kind of harm to the environment, suitable waste treatment and disposal plants were installed in the factory. Due to some sudden mechanical/ technical problem, these plants ceased to work properly and therefore, caused environmental pollution, which ultimately caused substantial harm to the environment and to the people living around the factory. Victims of such pollution file a suit for suitable remedy.

PRINCIPLE: Violation of a legal right, with or without actual damage, gives rise to a tort.

FACTS: Ravi and Lakshman are not the best of friends. They have strained relations and they constantly compete against one another for better business prospects. Ravi sets up a grocery store where he sells food grains for Rs. 20 per kilogram, a rate that is substantially lower than other stores in the same area. The store is a huge success, and Ravi gains huge profits, as everybody prefers to buy the grains from his store. Soon after, Lakshman sets up another store next to Ravi‘s and puts up a board that says, Rice – Rs.15 per kilo & Wheat – Rs. 12 per kilo‘. Attracted by the new offer, all of Ravi‘s customers now prefer to buy grains from Lakshman‘s store. Ravi, hence, incurs heavy losses and is forced to close down his store. He believes that Lakshman has set up the shop in order to make his business fail, and decides to sue Lakshman for damages.

Q. Will Ravi succeed?

PRINCIPLE: Tortuous liability may arise even though there is no contract between two parties if one of them has been unjustly enriched at the cost of the other.

FACTS: Rohit hears a knock at the door, and sees that someone has come to deliver a bag of grocery supplies. Rohit had not ordered for them, but he silently accepts the supplies without disclosing that he had not ordered them. His neighbor, David, who had actually ordered the supplies and paid for them, is perplexed that they have not been delivered yet.

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?

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.

Q. Will he succeed?

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.

Complete the sentence:To constitute trespass actual damage is………………………..

Principle – Ubi jus ibi remedium. Where there is a legal right, there is a legal remedy.

Facts – Deepti stays at a hotel in Indonesia for three months. After about a month, she gets fed up of the food served at the hotel, so she goes out to buy some ingredients, vegetables, etc. and asks the hotel chef to prepare a vegetarian meal and serve it in her room. The chef does so, but when the meal is served, she is asked to pay for the meal. Deepti, who had already spent a lot on the ingredients, refuses to pay for the simple vegetarian meal. The next day, at the breakfast table, the chef refuses to serve her any food. Deepti decides to sue the chef and claim damages.

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

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?

What does the legal term Caveat Emptor refer to?

X actually beats B with a stick. He has committed the offence of………………….

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.

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.

Principle: Harm suffered voluntarily is not actionable in law.

Facts: Dumbdev, 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.

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.