Law of Torts Answer Sheet 1 | Additional Study Material for CLAT PDF Download

1. (c) as the company engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity for its profit. Therefore, it shall be held absolutely liable for all the consequences originating out of it. 

2. (d) This is because as an intervention was made by the Act of God which acts as a defense for strict liability thereby excusing Guddu from his liability. 

3. (a) as Manoj will be considered strictly liable even when he/she has been not been negligent but his worker. That cannot be considered as a valid defense to excuse him from liability as he was involved and was dealing with a dangerous activity. 

4. (b) This is due to the reason of inherently dangerous activity which makes it more appropriate to apply absolute. 

5. (c) This is due to the reason that all the essential ingredients were not fulfilled. There existed a dangerous thing but it did not escape to cause damage to another. The individual came to the dangerous thing and sustained injuries. 

6. (a) This is because Ganesh was taken to cell for questions after his acquittal without the authority of law. Also, there was a total restraint in his movement and the time of confinement does not matter. What matters is restraint on the liberty of that individual which will be taken into consideration. Option (a) is more appropriate than option (d) as the former encompasses the idea of both unlawful act and total restraint. 

7. (c) This is because false imprisonment means confining in such an area from where there are no possible ways of escape. However, in the existing situation, Zena had the opportunity to go back. Therefore, this does not amount to false imprisonment. 

8. (a) This is because “for imprisonment, it is not necessary that the person should be put behind bars, but he should be confined in such an area from where there are no possible ways of escape except the will of the person who is confining the person within that area. It is not the degree of the imprisonment that matters but it is the absence of lawful authority to justify unlawful confinement which is of relevance.” In the instant case, there was no lawful authority to confine her to the conference room watched by one or two staff members giving rise to total restraint. 

9. (c) This is because the detention of Anjali by the police was on the ground of suspicion of theft and an investigation had to be done for the same. Thus, it was lawful and justified thereby making the act of police not fall under false imprisonment. 

10. (b) This is because even if there existed a restraint, it was for justifiable reasons. Therefore, prohibiting a person from leaving on account on non-payment cannot be false imprisonment. Also, option (b) is closer and relevant than option (d) as the former dealt with justifying the action so taken. 

11. (c) This is because of the violation of legal right which has been caused due to dishonour of cheque in spite of sufficient funds which is actionable in nature. 

12. (c) This is because a loss in monetary benefit does not invite the violation of legal rights. Therefore, in the existing case, even when the work is done under statutory authority the fact that the legal right does not get violated holds utmost importance. 

13. (b) This is simply because the exclusion from the competition might cause an economic loss but does not amount to any legal injury. In addition to this, even if such practices might be considered punishable under other laws but that would not hold relevance to the issue involved in the question. 

14. (c) This is for the reason that voting right is our legal right so being denied of it without a lawful justification would cause a legal injury irrespective of the outcome of the denial. The matter in question is not the actual damage but the violation of a legal right. 

15. (d) This is because Rajesh is not under an obligation to provide food supplies to the caretakers of the temple. Also, his omission to offer food to the idol might involve a loss but not a legal injury or violation. 

16. (d) One essential of such liability is the existence of a relationship between both the parties. Since there is no relationship between Ram and his neighbour, vicarious liability cannot arise. 

17. (b) There fact that neighbor was happy with Ram’s help and offered some money does not constitute an employer employee relationship. Thus, vicarious liability cannot arise. 

18. (d) Since the cat was injured during Harsh’s private drive, it cannot be said that the act was committed during Harsh’s course of employment. No vicarious liability arises. 

19. (c) One element of vicarious liability is that wrongful act must have some correlation with the master-servant relationship. The relationship in this case was for driving and thus breaking a statue would not be covered within the same.

 20. (b) Since Vaid brings his own tools, works in his own manner and charges by the day, he cannot be said to be in a greater degree of control as a servant. He is an independent contractor. Further, an independent contractor always enters into a contract for service. 

21. (a) All the elements of vicarious liability are fulfilled in the instant case. Thus, Shambhavi must be liable to pay damages. The passage states that it is irrelevant if the master expressly instructed the servant to not do something in a particular manner. 

22. (b) As it is common practice, by not informing claimant, doctors have not committed negligence. 

23. (a) Even though hospital might be at fault while treating their patient, for medical negligence it is important to proof that the neglected act of hospital has led to harm to patient. This same was not done in the present case. 

24. (d) For medical negligence it is important to proof that the neglected act of hospital has led to harm to patient. This same was not done in the present case. 

25. (b) Malini Hospital will not win. It is a reasonable to assume that ambulance could be stuck in traffic and thus they should provide all the facilities in ambulance. 

26. (b) There was only 25% chances that patient would have recovered, thus a major 75% indicated that the harm inflicted upon Jack was not of Hospital’s fault. And for medical negligence it is important to proof that the neglected act of hospital has led to harm to patient. 27. (a) Passage did not talk about principle of vicarious liability.