Test: Law Of Tort - 2 - CLAT MCQ

Vicarious liability refers to a situation where someone is held responsible for the actions or omissions of another person. In a workplace context, an employer can be liable for the acts or omissions of its employees, provided it can be shown that they took place in the course of their employment.

Unliquidated damages pl (plural only) (law) An amount owed to a plaintiff in a lawsuit by the defendant that can not be determined by operation of law, such as the value of pain and suffering in a tort case.Unliquidated damages are sum of money that cannot be foreseen or assessed by a fixed formula. It is established by a judge or jury. Damages may be categorized as unliquidatable when the amount of damages is unidentifiable or subject to an unforeseen event that makes the amount not calculable.

Law of tort is an uncodified law, means this is not a fixed law..it keeps on changing through the year by various judgements given by the courts according to the need of time. So it is largely developed through judicial decisions.

Innuendoes is an indirect way of talking about somebody/something, usually suggesting something bad or rude.

Essential elements of negligence-

• defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff

• he made a breach of such duty

• plaintiff suffered damages

If the statement is made in writing and published, the defamation is called "libel". If the statement , being hurtful, is spoken, the statement is "slander". In the above situation, the publisher of the newspaper published the defamatory article, hence he has committed libel.

Answer: A. Tort

Explanation:
A tort is a civil wrong that causes harm or loss to another individual, leading to legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. The main characteristics of a tort include:

- Twisted, crooked, and not straight: A tort is an act that deviates from what is considered lawful and reasonable behavior, causing harm or loss to someone else.

- Not a crime: While crimes are also unlawful acts, torts are distinct from crimes. A crime is a violation of the law that leads to criminal prosecution, while a tort is a civil matter that leads to legal liability and compensation for the injured party.

- Requires a remedy: The main purpose of tort law is to provide a remedy, usually in the form of monetary compensation, to the injured party. This is different from criminal law, where the main purpose is to punish the wrongdoer and protect society.

- Based on fault: Most torts are based on fault or negligence, meaning that the person who commits the tortious act is responsible for the consequences of their actions.

In summary, a tort is an act that is twisted, crooked, and not straight, leading to legal liability for the person who commits the act. It is different from a crime, as it is a civil wrong rather than a criminal offense, and the main aim is to provide a remedy to the injured party.

In law of torts intention is irrelevant in torts like nuisance and negligence but is relevant under tort of malicious prosecution,battery,assault, etc

Whoever by words or writing conveys to others any imputation concerning any person's “reputation” is said to defame that person.

The correct answer is B: Trespass.

Trespass refers to the act of unlawfully entering or remaining on another person's property without their permission. Some key points to remember about trespass include:

- It is a civil wrong (tort) and can also be a criminal offense.
- The property owner has the right to take legal action against the trespasser.
- Trespass can involve not only physical entry but also placing objects on someone else's property.
- In some cases, trespass can occur even if there is no intention to harm or damage the property.
- To prove trespass, the property owner must show that the trespasser had no right or permission to be on the property.

Explanation:

The law of torts deals with injuries to person or property caused by failure to take reasonable care. This area of law focuses on the following aspects:

• Negligence: A tort arises when a person fails to exercise reasonable care, resulting in harm to another person or their property. This could include car accidents, medical malpractice, or slip and fall cases.
• Intentional Torts: These involve actions that are intentionally harmful, such as assault, battery, false imprisonment, or intentional infliction of emotional distress.
• Strict Liability: In some cases, a person may be held liable for injuries or damages regardless of their intent or negligence. This is often applied in cases involving dangerous activities or defective products.
• Defamation: This tort involves the spreading of false information that harms a person's reputation, either through written (libel) or spoken (slander) communication.
• Nuisance: This occurs when a person's use of their property interferes with another person's enjoyment or use of their own property. Examples include excessive noise, pollution, or blocking access to a neighbor's property.
• Remedies: In tort cases, the injured party may seek compensation for their injuries, including medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and property damage. In some cases, punitive damages may also be awarded to deter similar behavior in the future.

In contrast, options B, C, and D do not fit the definition of tort law. Money transactions are typically governed by contract law, partnerships fall under business law, and industrial production is regulated by various laws, including environmental and labor laws.

Answer: A (Both A and R are true) Explanation: - Assertion (A) states that no one should make unnatural use of their land. This is true because unnatural use of land may lead to various problems, such as environmental degradation and loss of natural resources. - Unnatural use of land could include excessive deforestation, improper waste disposal, or harmful industrial activities. - These actions can lead to the destruction of ecosystems, loss of biodiversity, and depletion of natural resources like clean water and fertile soil. - Reason (R) states that making unnatural use of land may prove fatal for the public at large. This is also true because the consequences of unnatural land use can harm not only the environment but also the people who depend on it. - Environmental degradation can lead to pollution of air, water, and soil, which can cause various health issues for the public. - Loss of natural resources may result in food scarcity, water scarcity, and other essential resources, which can adversely affect the livelihood and well-being of the public. In conclusion, both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are true as the unnatural use of land can lead to environmental degradation and loss of natural resources, which can prove fatal for the public at large.

Both A and R are true but R is not correct explanation of A. 

The incorrect match is: A: ubi Jus ibi – Where there is a right there is damage Explanation: - ubi jus ibi is not the complete Latin phrase. The correct phrase is "ubi jus ibi remedium," which means "where there is a right, there is a remedy." The given translation, "where there is a right, there is damage," does not correctly represent the meaning of the phrase. The correctly matched phrases are: - B: res ipsa loquitur – things speak for themselves: This is a legal principle used when the facts and circumstances of a case are so obvious that they require no further explanation. - C: damnum sine injuria – damage without injury: This refers to situations where a person suffers some loss or harm, but that harm is not considered a legal injury because it does not involve a violation of their rights. - D: injuria sine damnum – injury without damage: This refers to situations where a person's rights have been violated, but they have not suffered any tangible harm or loss as a result. In such cases, the person may still be entitled to some form of legal remedy.

Answer: B Explanation: Slander is a tort because: - It is a civil wrong: Slander, as a defamation action, is a civil wrong that causes harm to a person's reputation, rather than a criminal act. - It involves a false statement: Slander involves making a false and damaging statement about someone, which is considered a tortious act. - It requires proof of damage: To succeed in a slander claim, the plaintiff must prove that the false statement has caused actual damage to their reputation or caused them to suffer financial loss. - It can result in compensation: A successful slander claim can lead to an award of monetary damages to compensate the injured party for the harm caused by the false statement.

The nurse works under the duty of the doctor So for the negligence of the nurse, Doctor will be HELD VICARIOUSLY liable. 

The correct option is B.
The owner of the car can sue rahul through his father for damages. The case will be registered in the name of Rahul but the ultimate compensation will be paid by Rahul's father.

Answer: B

Explanation:

• According to the principle stated, the servant's negligence is the master's responsibility.
• In this case, the watchman is the servant, and Abeera & Co. is the master as it manages the complex.
• The watchman's negligence led to the water overflow, which damaged Amir Ali's fruits in his shop.
• As per the principle, Amir Ali should sue Abeera & Co. for the watchman's negligence, as they are responsible for their employee's actions.

D is the correct option.A cannot succeed, as the barricades were installed under lawful authority AS police have lawful authority to do this so no restraint.

The principle states that a master is liable for the acts committed by his servant in the course of employment. However, in this case, B was explicitly instructed by A not to carry any unauthorized person in the car. When B picked up C, he was acting against these instructions and was therefore not in the course of his employment at that time. As a result, A should not be held liable for the injuries sustained by C in the accident.

Reasoning:

• The principle states that the owner of a land has a right to the column of airspace above their property, but this right is limited to the height necessary for the ordinary use of their land and any structures on it.
• In this case, A is the owner of the land and has constructed a single-storeyed house on it. Therefore, A has a right to the airspace above his house up to a height that is necessary for the ordinary use of his house.
• B, the neighbour, has erected a hoarding that protrudes over A's house at a height of around 6 feet above the terrace. This act interferes with A's right to the airspace above his property.
• Whether A intends to build an additional storey or not is irrelevant. The fact remains that B's hoarding is encroaching on A's airspace, which A is entitled to by law.

Conclusion:

A will succeed in his lawsuit against B for trespass, as B's act of erecting the hoarding that protrudes over A's house infringes on A's right to the airspace above his property.

Answer: B

Explanation:

• The principle states that an occupier should not perform a dangerous act without adequate warning if they are aware or suspect that a trespasser is present.
• In the given factual situation, 'A' was cutting a large tree on his land, which is a dangerous act, and he was aware that the boys were present nearby, even though they were trespassers.
• 'A' did not provide any warning to the boys about the potential danger, which led to one of the boys getting injured by a falling branch.
• As per the principle, 'A' is liable for the injury caused to the boy, since he did not give a warning even though he knew about the presence of the trespassers.

Advice:

Balu can successfully plead the case on grounds of nervous shock

• Avinash's false statement about Balu's father's accident led to Balu suffering from a violent shock, which caused his hair to turn grey and his life to be in danger for some time.
• According to the principle mentioned, damages can be recovered for nervous shock.
• Even though the statement was made on April 1st, it does not absolve Avinash from the responsibility of his actions, as the consequences of his prank were serious and not a mere harmless joke.
• Balu's weak nerves are not relevant to the case, as the cause of his suffering is directly linked to Avinash's false statement.

Therefore, Balu can file a suit against Avinash and has a strong chance of being successful in his claim for damages due to the nervous shock he experienced as a result of Avinash's false statement.

Here it does't matters that Tharun was drunk or doctor delayed in attending him but the pointis that it all occurs during course of employment so the master is liable. Stick to the principle. Correct answer is C .

Answer:

Marcus is liable as he intentionally threw the missile into the market place.

Explanation:

• Marcus, as the tort-feasor, is the one who committed the wrongful act of throwing the ignited missile into the crowded market place.
• By doing so, he created a foreseeable risk of harm to others present in the market place.
• Although the missile passed through several vendors before ultimately injuring Brutus, it was Marcus's initial act that set these events in motion.
• As per the principle stated, a tort-feasor is liable if the intended consequences of his act are evidently foreseeable. In this case, it was clearly foreseeable that throwing an ignited missile into a crowded area would result in some form of harm or injury to others.
• Thus, Marcus is liable for the injury suffered by Brutus.

A defamation as a tort is only a wrong if the defamation is of nature which harms the reputation of a person who is alive. The term "defamation" is an all- encompassing term that covers any statement that hurts someone's reputation. If the statement is made in writing and published, the defamation is called 'libel'. If the hurtful statement is spoken, the statement is called 'slander'. In the above situation, there was no publication of the letter, libel has not been committed.
Correct option is C.

Explanation:

The correct answer is C: The owner of the factory will not be liable.

Reasoning:

• According to the principle, an employer is liable for the negligence of his employee. In this case, A was the employee who was negligent by allowing the stone to fall from the basket.
• However, the principle also states that an employer is not liable for the negligence of his employee if the victim of such negligence is one of his other employees. In this case, B was also an employee of the factory.
• Since B was an employee of the factory, the owner of the factory will not be liable for the negligence of A that led to B's death.

Therefore, the owner of the factory will not be liable for the negligence of A that caused the death of B.

Answer: A

Explanation:

A will be entitled to damages because:

• A had a legal right to vote as an Indian citizen, and his name was mentioned in the voter's list.
• The returning officer violated A's right to vote by not allowing him to cast his vote at the polling booth, even though A reported to the booth in time.
• As a result of this violation, A suffered a loss, and he is entitled to seek monetary compensation for it.
• Although the candidate A would have voted for won the election, this does not negate the fact that A's right to vote was violated, and he may still be entitled to damages to compensate for the violation of his right.

The answer is B as if we eliminate other choices, B is the best suitable of all. in option A, organizing a race does not make anybody liable. options C and D are also not according to the principle. hence B is the correct choice.

The correct option is A.

This is correctly presented before us in case in which the precondition of contract becomes an impossibility. According to section 36 of indian contract act 1872 and guiding principle, the agreements dependent upon impossible events are void. As in this case B cannot marry C who is already dead and his marriage with C was the prevention to his receiving Rs 10 lakh from A. So the agreement between B and A is void.