Test: Law Of Tort - 10 - CLAT MCQ

PRINCIPLE: Ignorance of Fact is excused but ignorance of law is no excuse

FACTS: X was a passenger from Zurich to Manila in a Swiss Plane. When the plane landed at the Airport of Bombay on 28 Nov. 1962 it was found on searching that X carried 34 kg of Gold Bars on his person and that he had not declared it in the ‘Manifest for Transit’. On 26th Nov. 1962 the Government of India had issued a notification modifying its earlier exemption, making it mandatory now that the gold must be declared in the “Manifest” of the aircraft.

Ramu applied for the post of Director in an organization. The governing body of the organization passed a resolution appointing him to the post. After the meeting, one of the members of the governing body informed him privately of the resolution. Subsequently, the resolution was rescinded. Ramu claims damages. Which one of the following is the correct legal proposition in the case?

Ms. Usha wants to file a suit against Bhagyalaxmi Theatre praying for a permanent injunction (stay order) restraining the theatre from running the film named “Jai Santoshi Maa”. Her contention is that the film hurt her religious feelings and sentiments as Goddess Saraswati, Laxmi and Parvati were depicted as jealous and were ridiculed.

PRINCIPLES: 1. Consumable goods which are not fit for consumption are not marketable.
2. A consumer shall not suffer on account of unmarketable goods.
3. A seller is liable for knowingly selling unmarketable goods.
4. A manufacturer shall be liable for the quality of his products.

FACTS: Ram bought a Coca Cola bottle from Shama’s shop. Back at home, the server opened the bottle and poured the drink into the glasses of Ram and his friend Tom. As Tom started drinking, he felt irritation in his throat. Immediately, Ram and Tom took the sample to test and found nitric acid in the content. Ram filed a suit against Shama, Coca Cola company and the bottler, Kishan and Co.

SUGGESTED DECISIONS:

a. Ram cannot get compensation
b. Tom can get compensation
c.  Both Ram and Tom can get compensation

SUGGESTED REASONS:

i. Shama did not know the contents of sealed bottle.
ii. Ram did not actually suffer though he bought the bottle.
iii. Tom did not buy the bottle.
iv. Coca Cola company is responsible since it supplied the concentrate.
v. Kishen & Co, is responsible since it added water, sugar, etc., and sealed the bottle.
vi. Shama is responsible for selling the defective product. 

Your decision with the reason:

 PRINCIPLES: 1. If A is asked to do something by B, B is responsible for the act, not A.
2. If A, while acting for B commits a wrong, A is responsible for the wrong, not B.
3. If A is authorised to do something for B, but in the name of A without disclosing B’s presence, both A and B may be held liable.

FACTS: Somu contracted with Amar whereunder Amar would buy a pumpset to be used in Somu’s farm. Such a pumpset was in short supply in the market. Gulab, a dealer, had such a pumpset and he refused to sell it to Amar. Amar threatened Gulab of serious consequences if he fails to part with the pumpset. Gulab filed a complaint against Amar.

PROPOSED DECISION:

(a) Amar alone is liable for the wrong though he acted for Somu.
(b) Amar is not liable for the wrong, though he is bound by the contract with Somu.
(c) Somu is bound by the contract and liable for the wrong.
(d) Both Somu and Amar are liable for the wrong.

SUGGESTED REASONS:

i) Amar committed the wrong while acting for the benefit of Somu.
ii) Amar cannot do while acting for Somu something which he cannot do while acting for himself.
iii) Both Amar and Somu are liable since they are bound by the contract.
iv) Somu has to be responsible for the act of Amar committed for Somu’s benefit.

Your decision with the reason:

Principles
1. An employer shall be liable for the wrongs committed by his employees in the course of employment.
2. Third parties must exercise reasonable care to find out whether a person is actually acting in the course of employment.

Facts
Nandan was appointed by Syndicate Bank to collect small savings from its customer spread over the different places on daily basis. Nagamana, a housemaid, was one of such customers making use of Nandan’s service. Syndicate Bank after a couple of years terminated Nandari’s service. Nagamana, unaware of this fact, was handing over her savings to Nandan who misappropriated them. Nagamana realized this nearly after three months, when she went to the Bank to withdraw money. She filed a complain against bank.

Possible decision
(a) Syndicate Bank shall be liable to compensate Nagamma
(b) Syndicate Bank shall not be liable to compensate Nagamma
(c) Nagamma has to blame herself for her negligence.

Possible Reason
i) Nandan was not acting in the course of employmeht after the termination of his service.
ii) A person cannot blame others for his own negligence.
iii) Nagamna was entitled to be informed by the bank about Nandan                                                        iv)The Bank is entitled to expect its customers to know actual position

PRINCIPLES: 1. A master shall be liable for the fraudulent acts of his servants committed in the course of employment.
2. Whether an act is committed in the course of employment has to be judged in the context of the case.
3. Both master and third parties must exercise reasonable care in this regard.

FACTS: Rama Bhai was an uneducated widow and she opened an S.B. account with Syndicate Bank with the help of her nephew by name Keshav who was at that time working as a clerk in the Bank. Keshav used to deposit the money of Rama Bhai from time to time and get the entries done in the passbook. After a year or so, Keshav was dismissed from the service by the Bank. Being unaware of this fact, Rama Bhai continued to hand over her savings to him and Keshav misappropriated them. Rama Bhai realised this only when Keshav disappeared from the scene one day, and she sought compensation from the Bank.

POSSIBLE DECISIONS:

a. Syndicate Bank shall be liable to compensate Rama Bhai.
b. Syndicate Bank shall not be liable to compensate Rama Bhai.
c. Rama Bhai cannot blame others for her negligence.

POSSIBLE REASONS:

i. Keshav was not an employee of the Bank when the fraud was committed.
ii. The Bank was not aware of the special arrangement between Rama Bhai and Keshav
iii. It is the Bank’s duty to take care of vulnerable customers.
iv. Rama Bhai should have checked about Keshav in her own interest.

Your decision with the reason:

PRINCIPLES: 1. A person is liable for negligence, if he fails to take care of his neighbor’s interest.
2. A neighbour is anyone whose interests should have been foreseeable by a reasonable man while carrying on his activities.

FACTS: A cricket match was going on in a closed door stadium. A cricket fan who could not get into the stadium was watching the game by climbing up a nearby tree and sitting there. The cricket ball in the course of the game went out of the stadium and hit this person and injured him. He filed a suit against the organizers.

POSSIBLE DECISIONS:

a. The organizers are liable to compensate the injured person.
b. The organizers are not liable to compensate the injured person.
c. The injured person should have avoided the place where he might be hit by the cricket ball.

POSSIBLE REASONS:

i. The organizers are responsible for the people inside the stadium.
ii. The organizers could not have foreseen somebody watching the game by climbing up a tree.
iii. A person crazy about something must pay the price for that.
iv. The organizers shall be liable to everybody likely to watch the game.
Your decision with the reason:

PRINCIPLES: 1. When a person unlawfully interferes in the chattel of another person by which the latter is deprived of its use, the former commits the tort of conversion.

2. Nobody shall enrich himself at other’s expense.

FACTS: A patient suffering from stomach ailment approached a teaching hospital. He was diagnosed as suffering from appendicitis and his appendix was removed. He became alright. The hospital however found some unique cells in the appendix, and using the cell lines thereof, it developed drugs of enormous commercial value. When the erstwhile patient came to know about it, he claimed a share in the profit made by the hospital.

POSSIBLE DECISIONS:

a. The hospital need not share its profits with the patient.
b. The hospital may share its profits on ex gratis basis.
c. The hospital shall share its profits with the patient.

POSSIBLE REASONS:

i. The patient, far from being deprived of the use of his appendix, actually benefitted by its removal.
ii. The hospital instead of throwing away the appendix conducted further research on it on its own and the development of drug was the result of its own effort.
iii. The hospital could not have achieved its success without that appendix belonging to the patient.
iv. Everybody must care for and share with others.

Your decision with the reason:

B throws water on C with the intention of getting him wet. The action is

The term ‘Scienter’ is related to which one of the following sign boards

Assertion: H writes to his wife a letter, which contains defamatory matter about B. H is not liable to B for defamation

Reason: Communication of defamatory matter by a husband to his wife or vice versa is not a publication, for what passes between them is protected.

Assertion: Government cannot be held liable for the rots committed by its servant

Reason: A master is liable for the torts committed by his servant in the course of his employment

Assertion: A person can claim damages if he has sustained any loss monetary or otherwise

Reason: where there is infringement of a legal right, law allows compensation

Which of the following interests is not protected by the law of tort?

As an element of the tort of defamation, publication means that

Assertion: No action lies for mere damage caused by some act which does not violate a legal right

Reason: An action lies for interference with another legal right even where it causes no actual damage

Which of the following correctly identifies the remedies not available to the victim in case of false imprisonment?

X along with other passengers hired a bus owned by Y and driven by his driver Z. in the mid-way, the bus was punctured. So Y transferred X and other passengers to another bus owned by L, and driven by his servant R. The second bus met with an accident, in which X died and some other passengers were injured. W, X widow, sued for her husband death. In this case which one of the following is correct?

The last opportunity principle is related to the

In which one of the following situations A will be liable for defamation? A writes a letter containing a defamatory matter about B andKeeps it in a sealed envelope with himself

When a master A has lent only the labour of his servant to another master B, who of the following is/are liable for the wrongful acts of the servant?

Principle: A person is entitled to protect his property by using lawful means.

Facts: Ramlal is growing valuable vegetables and fruits in his farm and he has fenced the farm to prevent the cattle from entering into it. In addition he has kept a ferocious dog to chase away intruding urchins and cattles. Some children were playing in a nearby playground and the ball slipped into the farm. A boy running after the ball came near the fence and shouted for the ball. When there was no response, he managed to creep into the farm to get the ball. The dog which was surreptitiously waiting attacked the boy and badly mauled him. The boy's parents filed a suit against Ramlal.

Principle: `Volenti non fit injuria', a well-established legal principle, means that a person has no legal remedy for the injury caused by an act which he has consented.

Situation: An old man was walking in a narrow one-way lane in the opposite direction. It was night-time and there was no street lighting. A car moving in right direction but without headlights knocked him down since the driver could not see him. He filed a suit against the driver.

Legal Principle: Volenti non fit injuria means a person has no remedy against an injury caused by an act to which he has consented.Situation: Ravi was in a hurry to get to the airport to catch the plane and he hired a taxi run by

Sekhon Taxi Stand, well known in that locality. Ravi asked the driver to drive fast. In the city zone, there was a speed limit of 60 km per hours and the driver, rather reluctantly, drove quite fast at times 90 km per hour to reach the airport in time. As a result, the driver lost control and hit an obstacle and Ravi was badly injured. Ravi filed a suit against the taxi stand.

Principle: Every person has a right to defend his own person, property or possession against an immediate harm, and to that end, may use reasonable amount of force.

Situation: Mr Rajesh was passing by Mrs Saxena's house. At that time, Mrs Saxena's dog ran out and bit Mr Rajesh's overcoat. Mr Rajesh turned around and raised the pistol at shot at the dog when the dog was running away. Mr Rajesh. knew that the dog had attacked so many other people in that locality of Jammu.

Mrs Saxena claims that her dog was of a rare breed and it was worth Rs. 5000. She is planning to bring a legal action against Mr Rajesh for compensation.

Principle: A person cannot complain against a harm to which he has voluntarily consented. Precautions can be taken only against reasonably foreseeable mishaps.

Situation: At an athletic meet, during a hammer throw, the hammer came apart and hit a middle distance runner who was sitting 10 meters outside the throwing area. The runner sustained severe injuries on the head and neck. The runner filed a suit for damages. The standard precautions were taken for throwing the 7 kg hammer. The runner

i. would be able to recover because the organizers had failed to keep the equipment in good condition.

ii. would not be able to recover because the injuries were caused in a freak accident.

iii. would not be able to recover because she had agreed to participate in the sports meet with all the expectant risks.

iv. would not be able to recover because the accident was not reasonably foreseeable.