Judiciary Exams Exam  >  Judiciary Exams Tests  >  Test: Inevitable Accident: A Defence against Torts - Judiciary Exams MCQ

Test: Inevitable Accident: A Defence against Torts - Judiciary Exams MCQ


Test Description

10 Questions MCQ Test - Test: Inevitable Accident: A Defence against Torts

Test: Inevitable Accident: A Defence against Torts for Judiciary Exams 2024 is part of Judiciary Exams preparation. The Test: Inevitable Accident: A Defence against Torts questions and answers have been prepared according to the Judiciary Exams exam syllabus.The Test: Inevitable Accident: A Defence against Torts MCQs are made for Judiciary Exams 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, notes, meanings, examples, exercises, MCQs and online tests for Test: Inevitable Accident: A Defence against Torts below.
Solutions of Test: Inevitable Accident: A Defence against Torts questions in English are available as part of our course for Judiciary Exams & Test: Inevitable Accident: A Defence against Torts solutions in Hindi 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: Inevitable Accident: A Defence against Torts | 10 questions in 10 minutes | Mock test for Judiciary Exams preparation | Free important questions MCQ to study for Judiciary Exams Exam | Download free PDF with solutions
Test: Inevitable Accident: A Defence against Torts - Question 1

What is the key criterion that a defendant must establish to claim the defense of an inevitable accident?

Detailed Solution for Test: Inevitable Accident: A Defence against Torts - Question 1
To claim the defense of an inevitable accident, the defendant must establish two crucial points. Firstly, all due care was adopted by the defendant, indicating that reasonable precautions were taken. Secondly, the defendant could not have reasonably foreseen the accident, emphasizing the unforeseeable nature of the incident despite precautions.
Test: Inevitable Accident: A Defence against Torts - Question 2

How does the legal concept of Inevitable Accident differ from ordinary accidents?

Detailed Solution for Test: Inevitable Accident: A Defence against Torts - Question 2
The distinction between Inevitable Accidents and ordinary accidents lies in the fact that Inevitable Accidents are situations that occur despite all precautionary measures and reasonable care being taken. These incidents are unavoidable and bound to happen, even though they are not foreseeable. On the other hand, ordinary accidents may be preventable or foreseeable to some extent.
1 Crore+ students have signed up on EduRev. Have you? Download the App
Test: Inevitable Accident: A Defence against Torts - Question 3

In the case of Brown v. Kendal, why was the defendant not held liable for the injury caused to the plaintiff?

Detailed Solution for Test: Inevitable Accident: A Defence against Torts - Question 3
In the case of Brown v. Kendal, the court found that the defendant's actions were lawful and proper, and the injury caused to the plaintiff was deemed a pure mistake. As a result, the defendant was not held liable for damages. This ruling emphasizes the legal principle that liability may not arise if an injury is the result of a genuine mistake or accident during lawful actions, even if the consequences are severe.
Test: Inevitable Accident: A Defence against Torts - Question 4
What was the outcome of the case National Coal Board v. Evans regarding the damage to the underground cable?
Detailed Solution for Test: Inevitable Accident: A Defence against Torts - Question 4
In the case of National Coal Board v. Evans, the court determined that the accident resulting in damage to the underground cable was an unforeseeable consequence of the plaintiff's predecessors' actions. Consequently, the contractors could not be held responsible for the damage caused. This verdict underscores the legal principle that liability may not be assigned in situations where the accident is truly unpredictable and unavoidable.
Test: Inevitable Accident: A Defence against Torts - Question 5
Why was the defendant in Shridhar Tiwari v. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation not held responsible for the bus collision?
Detailed Solution for Test: Inevitable Accident: A Defence against Torts - Question 5
In the case of Shridhar Tiwari v. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, the court ruled that the accident resulting from the bus collision was unforeseen and occurred despite reasonable care taken by both bus drivers. Consequently, the defendant company was not held responsible for the accident. This decision highlights that liability may not be imposed when an accident is unforeseeable and happens despite the exercise of reasonable caution.
Test: Inevitable Accident: A Defence against Torts - Question 6
In the case of Stanley v. Powell, why was the defendant not found liable for the injury caused to the plaintiff?
Detailed Solution for Test: Inevitable Accident: A Defence against Torts - Question 6
In Stanley v. Powell, the court determined that the incident resulting in the plaintiff's injury was deemed an inevitable accident. As a consequence, the defendant was not held liable for the injury caused. This ruling underscores the legal principle that liability may not arise in situations where an accident is considered an inevitable occurrence, even if it leads to harm.
Test: Inevitable Accident: A Defence against Torts - Question 7
In the "Nitro-glycerine case," under what circumstances would the defendants be held liable for damages caused by the explosion?
Detailed Solution for Test: Inevitable Accident: A Defence against Torts - Question 7
In the "Nitro-glycerine case," the defendants would be held liable for damages caused by the explosion if they had prior knowledge of the dangerous nature of the contents. This case highlights the legal principle that liability is typically based on awareness or negligence.
Test: Inevitable Accident: A Defence against Torts - Question 8
According to "Brown v. Kendal," why was the defendant not held liable for the injury caused to the plaintiff?
Detailed Solution for Test: Inevitable Accident: A Defence against Torts - Question 8
In "Brown v. Kendal," the defendant was not held liable for the injury caused to the plaintiff because the court deemed the injury to be an accidental result of a pure mistake. This case illustrates the legal concept that liability is not imposed when harm results from an unintended accident.
Test: Inevitable Accident: A Defence against Torts - Question 9
In "Holmes v. Mather," why was the plaintiff unable to take legal action against the defendant's servant?
Detailed Solution for Test: Inevitable Accident: A Defence against Torts - Question 9
In "Holmes v. Mather," the plaintiff was unable to take legal action against the defendant's servant because the court determined that the accident was unavoidable. Despite the servant's best efforts to control the horses, the collision with the plaintiff was deemed as an inevitable event.
Test: Inevitable Accident: A Defence against Torts - Question 10
What legal principle was applied in the case of "Stanley v. Powell" to absolve the defendant of liability for the plaintiff's injury?
Detailed Solution for Test: Inevitable Accident: A Defence against Torts - Question 10
In "Stanley v. Powell," the legal principle of volenti non fit injuria was applied to absolve the defendant of liability for the plaintiff's injury. This principle signifies that the plaintiff voluntarily exposed themselves to the risk of injury, thereby releasing the defendant from responsibility in cases of inevitable accidents.
Information about Test: Inevitable Accident: A Defence against Torts Page
In this test you can find the Exam questions for Test: Inevitable Accident: A Defence against Torts solved & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving Questions and answers for Test: Inevitable Accident: A Defence against Torts, EduRev gives you an ample number of Online tests for practice

Top Courses for Judiciary Exams

Download as PDF

Top Courses for Judiciary Exams