Test: Law Of Tort - 9 - CLAT MCQ

LEGAL PRINCIPAL: Even if the sovereign functions of the State are discharged negligently the state is not vicariously liable in tort.

FACTUAL SITUATION: A was a trader in gold. There he was arrested by police and was detained in the police lock up after search. The gold with him along with sundry other things were seized. Later he was discharged. His possessions seized by the police were returned, except the gold. He moved against the State in tort. In the words of Supreme Court, “There can be no escape from the conclusion that the Police Officers were negligent in dealing with the property after it was seized” One of the Constables was a Muslim. He fled with gold to Pakistan.

Assertion (A): when you invite somebody to your house, you cannot sue him for trespass.

Reason (R): one cannot enforce a right which one has voluntarily waived or abandoned

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

Legal principle: whoever uses force without any lawful justification is deemed to commit battery

Facts: Mary and Maya have an argument over an issue in the classroom. In order to take revenge over this Mary tries to humiliate maya in front of the other classmates by pulling the chair the moment she is about to sit on the chair. Though maya falls, she is not hurt. However she files a case against mary for battery.

Q. Is mary liable?

Legal Principle: A person is entitled to use reasonable force for self defence.

Facts: Gokul was living in a farm house with a few family members. One night, a group of robbers broke open a door of the house and there was scuffle b/w the intruders and the residents. Gokul took out his pistol and fired a shot at one of the intruders. The shot did not hit the target and the robbers ran out of the house and by that time, the neighbors gathered in front of the house. Gokul in a fit of anger came out of the house and fired at fleeing robbers who by that time mingled with the neighbors. The shot injured a neighbor and he filed a suit against Gokul.

Legal principle: A master will be liable for the wrongful acts of his servants in the course of employment.

Facts: Mahesh was working as a driver in a company Lipton & 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 Roopa 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 somersaulted due to the negligence of Mahesh. Roopa was thrown out of the car and suffered multiple injuries. She seeks compensation from Lipton & Co.

Legal principle: An unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land or some right over or in connection with it is a nuisance in tort.

Facts: Mr. Prasad filed suit against Mr. Shyam for a permanent injunction to restrain him from installing and running flour mill in their premises. According to Mr. Prasad, it created nuisance to them as they were put on the first floor of the same premises. Will his action succeed?

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

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

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

A throws water on B and the drop of the water falls on B. A committed

Vicarious liability is based on which of the following principle?

Respondent superior means

In which of the following cases, ‘P’ did not owe duty of care to ‘Q’.

A is running a polyclinic well-equipped with operation theaters and supporting staff. S is a surgeon who makes use of this polyclinic to operate his patients. While operating a patient P, due to the negligence of nurse N (Who was a support staff of polyclinic), the surgical knife was left inside the abdomen of P. As a result, P developed several complications. Advise P as to against whom, i.e., A or S, he should file the suit for damages.

Legal Principles:

1. Negligence is the omission to do some-thing, which a reasonable man would do, breach of which, if it causes damage, makes one liable to the person who suffered loss.

2. One owes a duty of care to another, if a responsible man can foresee that he will be affected by the breach of duty.

3. One is not liable if the injured party volunteers to take the risk.

Factual Situation: A cricket match is being held in a stadium. Akshit, being unable to afford the ticket price, is viewing the cricket match sitting atop a branch of a nearby tree. When a batsman hits a ball over the boundary, the ball in turn hits Akshit and sustains injury on his spinal cord due to fall from the tree.

Whoever is under a duty of care to another shall be liable for any injury to the latter directly resulting from the breach of that duty.

2. Harm suffered voluntarily does not constitute legal injury.

Factual Situation: Gupta Confectioners sent certain items in a horse carriage to a customer's house, which happened to be by the side of a main road and near a school zone. The driver of the carriage delivered the items to the customers and went inside the house to collect the receipt, leaving the carriage unattended on tile road. Some naughty children nearby threw stones at the horses. The horses ran over confusion and were about to run over an old woman. A traffic police, at great risk to his life, somehow seized the horses and stopped the carriage. He suffered serious personal injuries in the process. The policemen seeks compensation from Gupta Confectioners.

Principle: A citizen is expected to take reasonable duty of care while driving on the road and not to cause injuries to any person.

Facts: X, the owner of a car, asked his friend Y to drive the car to his office. As the car was near his (X’s) office, it hit a pedestrian P on account of Y’s negligent driving and injured him seriously. P sued X for damages. Which one of the following is correct?

Principle: Contributory negligence in an accident is a defence for a charge in criminal law. 

Facts: X, the deceased was negligently crossing the busy road at Connaught Place in Delhi while Y’s car hit him resulting in the death of X. What is the liability of Y?

Principal : Negligence is a breach of duty or a failure of one party to exercise the standard of care required by law, resulting in damage to the party to whom the duty was owed. A plaintiff can take civil action against the respondent, if the respondent’s negligence causes the plaintiff injury or loss of property.   

Facts : ‘D’ went to a café and ordered and paid for a tin/can of soft drink.  The tin was opaque and thereof, the contents could not be seen from outside. She (‘D’) consumed some of the contents and then lifted the tin to pour the remainder of the content into a tumbler. The remains of a snail in decomposed state dropped out of the tin into the tumbler. ‘D’ later complained of a stomach pain and her as having gastroenteritis and being in a state of sever shock. She used the manufacturer of the drink for negligence.   

Applying the afore-stated principle, which of the following derivations is correct as regards liability of the manufacturer in the given situation?

Principle : Whoever, unlawfully or negligently does any act which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to he, likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be guilty of a negligent act likely to spread infection  into disease dangerous to life.

Facts : ‘K’, a person, knowing that he is suffering from Cholera, travels by a train without information the railway officers of his condition.

Legal Principle: A careless person becomes liable for his negligence when he owed a duty of care to others

Facts: As the bus was leaving the platform, Basappa rushed and boarded the bus keeping the door open. Beerappa who was standing at the edge of the platform, was hit by the door of the moving bus and injured. Beerappa takes Basappa to court demanding monetary compensation.

PRINCIPLE: “Nobody shall unlawfully interfere with a person’s use or enjoyment of land, or some right over, or in connection with it. The use or enjoyment, envisaged herein, should be normal and reasonable taking into account surrounding situation.”

FACTS: Jeevan and Pavan were neighbours in residential locality. Pavan started a typing class in a part of his house and his typing sound disturbed Jeevan, who could not put up with and kind of continuous noise. He filed a suit against Pavan.

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.

PRINCIPLE: Vicarious liability is the liability of the Master or Principal for the tort committed by his servant or agent, provided the tort is committed in the course of employment. The Master or Principal is not liable for private wrongs of the servant /agent.

FACTS: X hands over some cash money at his house to Y, who is X’s neighbour and is also cashier in a bank, to be deposited in A’s account in the bank. Instead of depositing the money, Y misappropriates it.Which of the following statements depict correct legal position in this given legal situation?

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. Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

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 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 financial loss and, thus, claimed compensation. Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?