Judiciary Exams Exam  >  Judiciary Exams Tests  >  Civil Law for Judiciary Exams  >  Test: Necessity as a Defence under Law of Torts - Judiciary Exams MCQ

Test: Necessity as a Defence under Law of Torts - Judiciary Exams MCQ


Test Description

15 Questions MCQ Test Civil Law for Judiciary Exams - Test: Necessity as a Defence under Law of Torts

Test: Necessity as a Defence under Law of Torts for Judiciary Exams 2024 is part of Civil Law for Judiciary Exams preparation. The Test: Necessity as a Defence under Law of Torts questions and answers have been prepared according to the Judiciary Exams exam syllabus.The Test: Necessity as a Defence under Law of Torts MCQs are made for Judiciary Exams 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, notes, meanings, examples, exercises, MCQs and online tests for Test: Necessity as a Defence under Law of Torts below.
Solutions of Test: Necessity as a Defence under Law of Torts questions in English are available as part of our Civil Law for Judiciary Exams for Judiciary Exams & Test: Necessity as a Defence under Law of Torts solutions in Hindi for Civil Law for Judiciary Exams course. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for Judiciary Exams Exam by signing up for free. Attempt Test: Necessity as a Defence under Law of Torts | 15 questions in 15 minutes | Mock test for Judiciary Exams preparation | Free important questions MCQ to study Civil Law for Judiciary Exams for Judiciary Exams Exam | Download free PDF with solutions
1 Crore+ students have signed up on EduRev. Have you? Download the App
Test: Necessity as a Defence under Law of Torts - Question 1

When can an individual invoke the defense of necessity in legal situations?

Detailed Solution for Test: Necessity as a Defence under Law of Torts - Question 1
An individual can invoke the defense of necessity in legal situations when their actions primarily benefit the public interest rather than serving private interests. This defense can be used, for example, when using reasonable force to prevent imminent harm for the greater good.
Test: Necessity as a Defence under Law of Torts - Question 2

How is necessity commonly utilized as a defense in legal cases involving trespass?

Detailed Solution for Test: Necessity as a Defence under Law of Torts - Question 2
Necessity is often used as a defense against trespass by justifying actions for the greater good or public interest. This defense is applicable when the actions taken under necessity primarily benefit the public rather than serving private interests.
Test: Necessity as a Defence under Law of Torts - Question 3

What distinguishes the application of necessity within tort law from its application in criminal law?

Detailed Solution for Test: Necessity as a Defence under Law of Torts - Question 3
The application of necessity within tort law differs from its application in criminal law in that it involves civil wrongs rather than criminal offenses. In tort law, necessity may be invoked to justify actions that would otherwise be considered wrongful if they were not done under the circumstances of necessity.
Test: Necessity as a Defence under Law of Torts - Question 4
What legal concept was successfully utilized in the case where a woman was forcibly fed while on a hunger strike in prison to defend against the charge of battery?
Detailed Solution for Test: Necessity as a Defence under Law of Torts - Question 4
The legal concept of necessity was successfully utilized in the case where a woman was forcibly fed while on a hunger strike in prison to defend against the charge of battery. Necessity is a defense that can be invoked when a person commits a certain act to prevent a greater harm or evil. In this case, the defendant argued that the action was necessary to prevent harm to the woman's health due to the hunger strike.
Test: Necessity as a Defence under Law of Torts - Question 5
In which case did a defendant enter the plaintiff's property to prevent a fire from spreading to adjacent land, justifying the action under the defense of necessity?
Detailed Solution for Test: Necessity as a Defence under Law of Torts - Question 5
The case of Cope v. Sharpe involved a defendant entering the plaintiff's property to prevent a fire from spreading to adjacent land, justifying the action under the defense of necessity. Necessity as a defense allows individuals to take actions that would otherwise be illegal if those actions are necessary to prevent greater harm or danger.
Test: Necessity as a Defence under Law of Torts - Question 6
In the case of Ploof v. Putnam, why did the court rule in favor of Ploof?
Detailed Solution for Test: Necessity as a Defence under Law of Torts - Question 6
The court ruled in favor of Ploof in the case of Ploof v. Putnam because it cited necessity in trespass situations. Ploof tied his boat to Putnam's dock to escape a storm, and when Putnam's servant untied the boat, it resulted in damage and injury. The court recognized the necessity of Ploof's actions in that specific situation.
Test: Necessity as a Defence under Law of Torts - Question 7
Why was the shooting incident in People v. La Voie considered self-defence by the Colorado court?
Detailed Solution for Test: Necessity as a Defence under Law of Torts - Question 7
The shooting incident in People v. La Voie was considered self-defence by the Colorado court because they perceived imminent danger. In self-defence cases, the defender must reasonably believe that there is an immediate threat of harm, and in this specific case, the court determined that the shooter's actions were justified due to the perceived imminent danger.
Test: Necessity as a Defence under Law of Torts - Question 8
How does the level of force in necessity compare to that in self-defence?
Detailed Solution for Test: Necessity as a Defence under Law of Torts - Question 8
Necessity typically requires less force than self-defence, often considered the "lesser of the two evils." When acting out of necessity, individuals are compelled to take actions to prevent immediate harm or danger, using only the force necessary to address the urgent situation. In contrast, self-defence may involve a higher level of force as it is a response to an intentional threat or harm posed by another party.
Test: Necessity as a Defence under Law of Torts - Question 9
In the case of Stanley v. Powell, what legal outcome was reached regarding the accidental injury during the pheasant shooting activity?
Detailed Solution for Test: Necessity as a Defence under Law of Torts - Question 9
In the case of Stanley v. Powell, the court determined the incident as an accident, absolving the shooter of liability due to the unforeseeable nature of the harm caused. This ruling highlights the legal recognition of an inevitable accident, emphasizing the lack of intention or foreseeability in such situations.
Test: Necessity as a Defence under Law of Torts - Question 10
What significant factor is essential for both the defenses of inevitable accident and necessity in tort law?
Detailed Solution for Test: Necessity as a Defence under Law of Torts - Question 10
A crucial factor common to both the defenses of inevitable accident and necessity in tort law is the presence of intention by the harming party. This requirement underscores the importance of assessing the intent behind the actions leading to harm, influencing the legal interpretation and application of these defenses.
Test: Necessity as a Defence under Law of Torts - Question 11
In the case of Re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation), why was it deemed necessary to separate the Siamese Twins even if it meant the weaker twin might not survive?
Detailed Solution for Test: Necessity as a Defence under Law of Torts - Question 11
In the legal case of Re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation), the decision to separate the Siamese Twins was made to prevent the death of both twins if they remained conjoined. Even though the surgery posed risks to the weaker twin, it was deemed necessary to undertake the separation to give both twins a chance at survival. This case highlights the complex ethical and legal considerations involved in medical decision-making, especially in situations where the lives of multiple individuals are at stake.
Test: Necessity as a Defence under Law of Torts - Question 12
How did the principle of necessity play a role in the criminal case of Re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation)?
Detailed Solution for Test: Necessity as a Defence under Law of Torts - Question 12
The principle of necessity played a crucial role in the criminal case of Re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation) by upholding the decision to separate the Siamese Twins for their survival. This legal principle recognizes that in certain circumstances, actions that would normally be considered unlawful may be justified if they are necessary to prevent greater harm or to safeguard essential interests. In this case, the necessity of the separation was established to prevent the imminent death of both twins if they were not surgically separated.
Test: Necessity as a Defence under Law of Torts - Question 13
What legal action can be taken against a doctor who provides medical treatment to an incapacitated individual without their consent?
Detailed Solution for Test: Necessity as a Defence under Law of Torts - Question 13
In cases where a doctor provides medical treatment to an incapacitated individual without their consent, a trespass action can be taken against the doctor. This legal recourse allows individuals to challenge actions that involve a violation of their bodily integrity or personal autonomy. Trespass actions in the context of medical treatment typically focus on whether the treatment provided was necessary, justified, and conducted in the best interest of the patient, especially when the patient's capacity to consent is in question.
Test: Necessity as a Defence under Law of Torts - Question 14
Why is the presence of the defense of Necessity considered significant in the realm of Torts law?
Detailed Solution for Test: Necessity as a Defence under Law of Torts - Question 14
The defense of Necessity in Torts law is crucial as it safeguards individuals who find themselves compelled to commit wrongful acts from facing consequences. It ensures that those coerced into actions they had no alternative means to avoid are not unjustly penalized, highlighting the importance of this legal defense in protecting the innocent.
Test: Necessity as a Defence under Law of Torts - Question 15
How does the concept of necessity protect individuals who are coerced into committing wrongful acts?
Detailed Solution for Test: Necessity as a Defence under Law of Torts - Question 15
The concept of necessity protects individuals who are coerced into committing wrongful acts by safeguarding them from unjust liability. This defense recognizes that there are situations where individuals have no choice but to act in a certain way and ensures that they are not unfairly penalized for circumstances beyond their control.
253 docs|259 tests
Information about Test: Necessity as a Defence under Law of Torts Page
In this test you can find the Exam questions for Test: Necessity as a Defence under Law of Torts solved & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving Questions and answers for Test: Necessity as a Defence under Law of Torts, EduRev gives you an ample number of Online tests for practice

Up next

Download as PDF

Up next

Download the FREE EduRev App
Track your progress, build streaks, highlight & save important lessons and more!