Law of Torts Test-1

Result

Law of Torts Test-1

Score
-
out of -
Rank
-
out of -

TIME Taken - -

SHARING IS CARING

If our Website helped you a little, then kindly spread our voice using Social Networks. Spread our word to your readers, friends, teachers, students & all those close ones who deserve to know what you know now.

Weekly Quiz Competition

Question 1
1 / -0.25

Principle: When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of that person to such an act or abstinence, he is said to have made a proposal.
Fact: Ramchandra telegraphed to Shyam Sunder, writing: “Will you sell me your Rolls Royce car? Telegram the lowest cash price.”Shyam Sunder also replied by telegram: “Lowest price for car is Rs. 20 lakh.”Ramanuj immediately sent his consent through telegram stating: “I agree to buy the car for Rs. 20 lakh asked by you.”Shyam Sunder refused to sell the car.

A
He cannot refuse to sell the car because the contract has already been made.

B
He can refuse to sell the car because it was only invitation to offer and not the real offer.

C
It was not a valid offer because willingness to enter into a contract was absent.

D
None of these.

Solution

Option C. It was not a valid offer because willingness to enter into a contract was absent.
Question 2
1 / -0.25

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 a 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 any kind of continuous noise. He filed a suit against Pavan.

A
Pavan is liable, because he should not have started typing class in his house

B
Pavan is liable, because as a neighbour, he should have realised Jeevan 's delicate nature

C
None of these

D
Pavan is not liable, because typing sound did not disturb anyone else other than Jeevan
Solution
Private Nuisance can be defined as "any continuous activity or state of affairs causing a substantial and unreasonable interference with a (claimant 's) land or his use or enjoyment of that land ".

Private nuisance, unlike public nuisance, is only a tort, and damages for personal injuries are not recoverable.
Question 3
1 / -0.25

Jill ran five miles yesterday, and right before she was done she fell and cut her arm so badly it required stitches. Today, Carl bumped into Jill in the office because he was carelessly not watching where he was going as he was spinning around and around in a hallway. The impact caused Jill ’s stitches to bleed. Jill then sued Carl for negligence, trying to recover the cost of her doctor ’s bill. Jill ’s negligence will not hold in court because:

A
It lacks a proximate cause.

B
It lacks duty of care

C
It lacks a breach of duty.

D
It lacks actual harm.
Solution
The actions of the person (or entity) who owes you a duty must be sufficiently related to your injuries such that the law considers the person to have caused your injuries in a legal sense. If someone ’s actions are a remote cause of your injury, they are not a proximate cause.
However, if your injury would not have occurred “but for ”the actions of another, then usually you can conclude there was proximate causation. Usually, this is an easy question.
But proximate cause can also be the most difficult issue in a personal injury case. Not every remote cause of an injury will result in a right to recover damage.
Sometimes, the actions of the person who got hurt can be the cause of their own injuries.
Question 4
1 / -0.25

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.

A
X can be held responsible for trespass to goods.

B
X cannot be held responsible for trespass to good as he was under a wrong belief.

C
X has not committed any wrong.

D
None of the above.
Solution
Trespass to goods means wrongful interference with the goods in possession of another. It is an wrongful act punishable under tort.
In the above case X removing the car (which does not belong to him) can be held responsible for trespass to goods.
Question 5
1 / -0.25

The Railway authorities allowed a train to be over-crowded. In consequence, a legitimate passenger, Mr. X got his pocket picked. Choose appropriate answer-

A
Mr. X can sue the railway authorities for the loss suffered.

B
Mr. X cannot sue because he had given his consent to travel in over-crowded train.

C
Mr. X cannot sue railway authorities because there was no infringement of his legal right and mere fact that the loss was caused does not give rise to a cause of action

D
None of the above.

Solution

A cause of action is a set of facts that are used to justify claims or right to sue to obtain property or money or enforcement of a right against another party and since there is no infringement of legal rights of X, there is no cause of action arising against the Railway authority and hence he cannot sue them.
Question 6
1 / -0.25

PRINCIPLE: A master is liable for the acts committed by his servant in the course of employment.
FACT: Sanjay is a driver working in Brookebond and 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 fianc éRuhina 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 and soon thereafter; the car somersaulted due to negligence of Sanjay. Ruhina was thrown out of the car and suffered multiple injuries. She seeks compensation from Brookebond and Co.

A
Brookebond and Co., shall not be liable, Sanjay was not in the course of employment when he took Ruhina inside the car.

B
Brookebond and Co., shall be liable, because Sanjay was in the course of employment at the time of accident

C
Ruhina got into the car at her own risk, and therefore, she cannot sue anybody.

D
None of the above.
Solution
Vicarious liability can be defined as a legal doctrine that assigns liability for an injury to a person who did not cause the injury who has a particular relationship to the person who did act negligently. It can also be called imputed negligence .
This doctrine arises under the common law doctrine of agency, respondeat superior, the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate or, in a broader sense, the responsibility of any third party that had the "right, ability or duty to control "the activities of a violator.
Hence, in the above situation, since the act was not committed in the course of employment, Ruhina will not succeed.
Question 7
1 / -0.25

PRINCIPLE: The transferor of goods cannot pass a better title than what he himself possesses.
FACTS: X sells a stolen bike to Y. Y buys it in good faith.
Q. As regards the title to the bike which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

A
The real owner cannot get back the bike from Y.

B
Y will get no title as transferor ’s (X ‟s) title was defective.

C
Y will get good title as he is a bona fide buyer.

D
Y will get good title, as has not committed any wrong (stolen the bik

Solution

Y will not get the title of that product because transfer, as well as ownership, is unlawful, it doesn 't matter intention lies or not.
hence x will be totally guilty for forgery and misrepresentation..
Question 8
1 / -0.25

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.
Q. Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

A
R should be compensated as he purchased the ticket to get entertainment and not get injured.

B
R would fail in his action, as he voluntarily exposed himself to the risk.

C
IPL would be liable as it did not ensure that the spectators were protected from the risk of such injuries.

D
None of the above.

Solution

As the principal says that A person has no legal remedy for an injury caused by an act to which he has consented. So he voluntarily put himself at risk
Question 9
1 / -0.25

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

A
defendant

B
plaintiff

C
either a or b

D
Both a and b

Solution

In negligent commission of trespass to person, plaintiff need to proof that injuries so complaint of are reasonably foreseeable. In case of direct trespass or intentional trespass proof of actual damage is not necessary but in negligent torts, proof of damage becomes essential.
Question 10
1 / -0.25

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

A
Since no legal right of ES has been violated, therefore, as such, no compensation could be granted.

B
Since damage is caused to ES, therefore, it should be awarded compensation.

C
ES should be awarded compensation as opening of school in competition is not good.

D
No compensation could be granted, as reduction in fees is good for the public.

Solution

The opening of a new school with lower fees does not violate ES 's legal right, there is no legal injury, So no compensation is to be given.

User

Question Analysis

Correct -
Wrong -
Skipped -

My Perfomance

Score
-
out of -
Rank
-
out of -

Re-Attempt Weekly Quiz Competition

Law of Torts Test-1

Result

Law of Torts Test-1

Score

-

Rank

-

SHARING IS CARING

Question 1

He cannot refuse to sell the car because the contract has already been made.

He can refuse to sell the car because it was only invitation to offer and not the real offer.

It was not a valid offer because willingness to enter into a contract was absent.

None of these.

Solution

Question 2

Pavan is liable, because he should not have started typing class in his house

Pavan is liable, because as a neighbour, he should have realised Jeevan 's delicate nature

None of these

Pavan is not liable, because typing sound did not disturb anyone else other than Jeevan

Solution

Question 3

It lacks a proximate cause.

It lacks duty of care

It lacks a breach of duty.

It lacks actual harm.

Solution

Question 4

X can be held responsible for trespass to goods.

X cannot be held responsible for trespass to good as he was under a wrong belief.

X has not committed any wrong.

None of the above.

Solution

Question 5

Mr. X can sue the railway authorities for the loss suffered.

Mr. X cannot sue because he had given his consent to travel in over-crowded train.

Mr. X cannot sue railway authorities because there was no infringement of his legal right and mere fact that the loss was caused does not give rise to a cause of action

None of the above.

Solution

Question 6

Brookebond and Co., shall not be liable, Sanjay was not in the course of employment when he took Ruhina inside the car.

Brookebond and Co., shall be liable, because Sanjay was in the course of employment at the time of accident

Ruhina got into the car at her own risk, and therefore, she cannot sue anybody.

None of the above.

Solution

Question 7

The real owner cannot get back the bike from Y.

Y will get no title as transferor ’s (X ‟s) title was defective.

Y will get good title as he is a bona fide buyer.

Y will get good title, as has not committed any wrong (stolen the bik

Solution

Question 8

R should be compensated as he purchased the ticket to get entertainment and not get injured.

R would fail in his action, as he voluntarily exposed himself to the risk.

IPL would be liable as it did not ensure that the spectators were protected from the risk of such injuries.

None of the above.

Solution

Question 9

defendant

plaintiff

either a or b

Both a and b

Solution

Question 10

Since no legal right of ES has been violated, therefore, as such, no compensation could be granted.

Since damage is caused to ES, therefore, it should be awarded compensation.

ES should be awarded compensation as opening of school in competition is not good.

No compensation could be granted, as reduction in fees is good for the public.

Solution

User

Question Analysis

My Perfomance

Score

-

Rank

-

Results Announcement on: coming Monday

Stay Tuned: We’ll update you on your result via email or SMS.