Law of Torts Test-3

Result

Law of Torts Test-3

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

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

A
Not necessary

B
Necessary

C
Sometimes taken into account

D
None of the above

Solution

To constitute trespass actual damage is not necessary

Intention:
An act does not constitute trespass to person unless it is done with intention. Thus intention is the chief criteria for trespass to person.

If there is an intention behind committing a trespass then it is actionable per se and the plaintiff need not proof any specific or particular damage.

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 2
1 / -0.25

Principle –Ubi jus ibi remedium . Where there is a legal right, there is a legal remedy.

Facts –Deepti stays at a hotel in Indonesia for three months. After about a month, she gets fed up of the food served at the hotel, so she goes out to buy some ingredients, vegetables, etc. and asks the hotel chef to prepare a vegetarian meal and serve it in her room. The chef does so, but when the meal is served, she is asked to pay for the meal. Deepti, who had already spent a lot on the ingredients, refuses to pay for the simple vegetarian meal. The next day, at the breakfast table, the chef refuses to serve her any food. Deepti decides to sue the chef and claim damages.

A
Although there has been actual damage, there is no legal damage; hence Deepti will not be entitled to receive damages.

B
Deepti will be entitled to damages as her right has been violated. She has suffered actual as well as legal damage.

C
Can ‘t say whether or not there has been legal damage.

D
Deepti will be entitled to receive damages, as the chef has unreasonably denied serving food to her.

Solution

The correct option is A.

As the principle states ‘Where there is a legal right, there is a legal remedy.’
Question 3
1 / -0.25

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

A
Murder

B
house trespass

C
attempt to murder

D
no offence

Solution

Well as Y was away so murder or anything of that sort is impossible to happen, and as X went in with a view to murder Y he has committed trespass.
Question 4
1 / -0.25

Principle –Whoever stores a substance which would cause damage on escape shall be strictly liable (i.e., liable even when he has exercised necessary care) for any damage caused by the escape of that substance.

Facts –Cobalamine Co. is a manufacturer of hydrogen peroxide which has several industrial uses, but is also dangerous. The Company has one of its factories set up in Dimapur, a small district. While transporting the hydrogen peroxide from that factory to another place in huge containers, the engine of the truck carrying the chemical got overheated, and this triggered an explosion of the concentrated hydrogen peroxide. The truck driver, and several other people on the road were grievously injured. The reaction was shortly contained by an expert team, and investigations revealed that reasonable precautions had been taken to prevent such a mishap.

Q. Will Cobalamine be liable to pay damages to those injured?

A
No, Cobalamine would not be liable, as they had taken reasonable precautions to prevent the mishap.

B
The factory authorities at Dimapur would be liable, not Cobalamine.

C
Cobalamine would be liable as hydrogen peroxide is a dangerous substance and its escape fixes liability, despite the taking of reasonable precautions.

D
Both (b) and (c).

Solution

Whoever stores a substance which would cause damage on escape shall be strictly liable (i.e., liable even when he has exercised necessary care) for any damage caused by the escape of that substance.

Cobalamine would be liable as hydrogen peroxide is a dangerous substance and its escape fixes liability, despite the taking of reasonable precautions.
Question 5
1 / -0.25

What does the legal term Caveat Emptor refer to?

A
Let the buyer beware

B
According to value

C
An unwelcome person

D
Beyond the powers

Solution

Correct option is A. Let the buyer beware
Question 6
1 / -0.25

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

A
Assault

B
Battery

C
grievous hurt

D
hurt

Solution

X beats B with a stick so, he commits the offence ... moreof battery because the intentional use of force against another person without lawful justification constitutes tort of battery .
Question 7
1 / -0.25

Principle –The master is liable for the wrongful acts of the servant done in the course of employment.

Facts – Pradyuman is a mechanic working in the car mechanics shop owned by Abhjit. Pallavi wants her Audi A8 to be serviced and cleaned, as she is planning to go on a long drive soon. She drops off the car at the mechanic ‘s, and asks Pradyuman to have it ready in two days. Pradyuman, while trying to drive the car to the jet-cleaning area, accidentally bumps it against the wall and a dent is created on the car door. When Pallavi comes to take her serviced car, she is livid at the condition in which it is returned to her, and wishes to sue for damages.

A
Only Pradyuman will be liable as he has caused the damage to the car.

B
Both Pradyuman and Abhijit will be jointly liable.

C
Abhijit will be liable to pay damages, as Pradhyuman is his servant and the damage was caused in the course of employment.

D
Pallavi will not be entitled to claim damages as she should not have given her car to a small mechanic such as Abhijit.

Solution

The master is liable for the wrongful acts of the servant done in the course of employment.

Abhijit will be liable to pay damages, as Pradhyuman is his servant and the damage was caused in the course of employment.
Question 8
1 / -0.25

Principle –Volenti non fit injuria - No remedy can be claimed for harm caused through voluntary consent.

Facts –On a hot, sunny day, Avtar Singh, a traffic policeman wishes to take a break from his work on the Jangpura-Jayanagar junction. He sees a grocery store nearby, and decides to buy some refreshments. To get to the grocery store, he must cross the busy road first. While doing so, he sees that a child has suddenly jumped down from the pavement on the other side, and is attempting to cross the road, despite vehicles hurtling past at a high speed. On seeing an approaching car that the child does not seem to be aware of, Avtar lunges forward and pushes the child out of the way. However, the driver of the car, Mr. Takwani, is unable to stop the car in time and hits Avtar, who sustains serious injuries, including a torn ligament. This means that Avtar will not be able to perform his duties as a traffic policeman for at least six months. He wishes to sue Takwani and claim damages for his loss in income, but Takwani asserts that there was a green light, and he had committed no fault in driving at a reasonable speed. It was Avtar who had suddenly lunged forward, giving him no time to apply the brakes! Decide.

A
Avtar voluntarily lunged forward to save the child from being hit by the approaching car, fully aware that there were vehicles approaching at high speeds. Therefore, he cannot claim damages.

B
Avtar had no option but to put himself in harm ‘s way, and save the innocent child. Takwani should have been more careful while driving, and hence, he must pay damages for the harm suffered by Avtar.

C
Avtar was being unnecessarily noble, his act was entirely voluntary, so he cannot claim any damages.

D
Takwani was at fault, and must be prosecuted for rash and reckless driving.Ans. A

Solution

As simple as it is, Volenti Non Fit Injuria - No d... more amages for harm caused by voluntary actions.Avtar jumped before the car by his own wish to save the child so he can 't clam any damages whatsoever. There is no mention of Takwani being rash so option D and B are out.between option A and C, A is the better pick because it justifies the whole thing properly and unnecessarily noble is just not right in option C
Question 9
1 / -0.25

Principle: Harm suffered voluntarily is not actionable in law.

Facts: Dumbdev, a snake charmer, was exhibiting his talents to a group of people. One of the snakes escaped and bit a child who had to be hospitalized for two days for treatment.

A
Dumbdev is liable to compensate the child ’s family for his careless act

B
Dumbdev is not liable to anything as such things keep happening.

C
Dumbdev is not in a position to compensate as he is poor

D
The child should have taken adequate care from protecting herself from the snake bite.

Solution

Because merely watching the snake charmer ply his trade does not mean agreeing to getting bit by the snake
Question 10
1 / -0.25

PRINCIPLE: Qui facit per alium facit per se, i.e., he who does things through others does it himself.

FACTS: Nisha, the owner of a car, asked her friend Saurabh to take her car and drive the same to her office. As the car was near her office, it hit a pedestrian Srikant on account of Saurabh ’s negligent driving and injured him seriously. Now, Srikant files a suit for damages against Nisha.

A
Nisha is not liable as it was the negligence of Saurabh

B
Saurabh is solely liable as Nisha was not driving the car

C
Nisha is liable as Saurabh was driving under her authority and for her purpose.

D
Saurabh will be exempted from liability under the principle of inevitable accident

Solution

The principle “Qui facit per alium facit per se ”means that a person is responsible for the actions of others performed on their behalf. In this case, Nisha asked Saurabh to drive her car to her office. Therefore, even though Saurabh was the one driving, Nisha is responsible for his actions because he was acting under her authority and for her purpose. As a result, Nisha would be liable for the damages caused by Saurabh ’s negligent driving.
Question 11
1 / -0.25

PRINCIPLE: When an act, which would otherwise be an offence, is not that offence by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, every person has the same right of private defence against that act, which he would have if the act were that offence. Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.

FACTS: A, under the influence of madness, attempts to kill B. B in order to save his life cause grievous hurt to A.

A
A has committed an offence

B
A has not committed an offence

C
B has committed an offence

D
B has not committed any offence

Solution

When an act, which would otherwise be an offence, is not that offence by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, every person has the same right of private defence against that act, which he would have if the act were that offence. Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.

B has not committed any offence as he was acting in sef defense
Question 12
1 / -0.25

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

A
Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A)

B
Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is not the correct explanation of (A)

C
(A) is true (R) is wrong

D
(A) is wrong (R) is wrong

Solution

A is the correct option.Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A). If we take an example to prove the situation- if person A voluntarily invites person B in his house then person A can 't sue B for trespass.
Question 13
1 / -0.25

PRINCIPLE: Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person ’s consent moves that property, such taking is said to commit theft.

FACT: RAMU cuts down a tree on RINKU ’S ground, with the intention of dishonestly taking the tree out of RINKU ’S profession without RINKU ’S consent. A could not take the tree away.

A
RAMU can be prosecuted for theft

B
RAMU cannot be prosecuted for theft

C
RAMU can be prosecuted for attempt to theft

D
RAMU has neither committed theft nor attempt to commit theft

Solution

Ramu will be prosecuted for theft, since he had theintention of taking away the tree after cutting it.
The principle clearly talks about the intention of taking away property.
Question 14
1 / -0.25

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 fianc éRoopa 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.

A
Lipton &Co. shall not be liable, because Mahesh was not in the course of employment when he took Roopa inside the car.

B
Lipton &Co. shall be liable, because Mahesh was in the course of employment at the time of the accident

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

D
None of the above

Solution

This problem is based on Premvati Vs State of Rajasthan AIR 1977 facts are not similar Lipton and company shall not be liable.
Question 15
1 / -0.25

PRINCIPLE: Res ipsa loquitur, i.e., the thing speaks for itself.

FACTS: Seema got herself operated for the removal of her uterus in the defendant ’s hospital, as there was diagnosed to be a cyst in one of her ovaries. Due the negligence of the surgeon, who performed the operation, abdominal pack was left in her abdomen. The same was removed by a second surgery.

A
Surgeon cannot be held responsible because it is merely a human error

B
Surgeon can be held responsible but Seema will have to prove in the court of law that the surgeon was grossly negligent

C
Surgeon will be responsible and Seema need not to prove surgeon ’s negligence because presence of abdominal pack in her abdomen is sufficient proof therefore

D
None of the above

Solution

Surgeon left an abdominal pack in her abdomen which is a fact and it speaks for itself and hence sufficient enough for the case.

User

Question Analysis

Correct -
Wrong -
Skipped -

My Perfomance

Score
-
out of -
Rank
-
out of -

Re-Attempt Weekly Quiz Competition

Law of Torts Test-3

Result

Law of Torts Test-3

Score

-

Rank

-

SHARING IS CARING

Question 1

Not necessary

Necessary

Sometimes taken into account

None of the above

Solution

Question 2

Although there has been actual damage, there is no legal damage; hence Deepti will not be entitled to receive damages.

Deepti will be entitled to damages as her right has been violated. She has suffered actual as well as legal damage.

Can ‘t say whether or not there has been legal damage.

Deepti will be entitled to receive damages, as the chef has unreasonably denied serving food to her.

Solution

Question 3

Murder

house trespass

attempt to murder

no offence

Solution

Question 4

No, Cobalamine would not be liable, as they had taken reasonable precautions to prevent the mishap.

The factory authorities at Dimapur would be liable, not Cobalamine.

Cobalamine would be liable as hydrogen peroxide is a dangerous substance and its escape fixes liability, despite the taking of reasonable precautions.

Both (b) and (c).

Solution

Question 5

Let the buyer beware

According to value

An unwelcome person

Beyond the powers

Solution

Question 6

Assault

Battery

grievous hurt

hurt

Solution

Question 7

Only Pradyuman will be liable as he has caused the damage to the car.

Both Pradyuman and Abhijit will be jointly liable.

Abhijit will be liable to pay damages, as Pradhyuman is his servant and the damage was caused in the course of employment.

Pallavi will not be entitled to claim damages as she should not have given her car to a small mechanic such as Abhijit.

Solution

Question 8

Avtar voluntarily lunged forward to save the child from being hit by the approaching car, fully aware that there were vehicles approaching at high speeds. Therefore, he cannot claim damages.

Avtar had no option but to put himself in harm ‘s way, and save the innocent child. Takwani should have been more careful while driving, and hence, he must pay damages for the harm suffered by Avtar.

Avtar was being unnecessarily noble, his act was entirely voluntary, so he cannot claim any damages.

Takwani was at fault, and must be prosecuted for rash and reckless driving.Ans. A

Solution

Question 9

Dumbdev is liable to compensate the child ’s family for his careless act

Dumbdev is not liable to anything as such things keep happening.

Dumbdev is not in a position to compensate as he is poor

The child should have taken adequate care from protecting herself from the snake bite.

Solution

Question 10

Nisha is not liable as it was the negligence of Saurabh

Saurabh is solely liable as Nisha was not driving the car

Nisha is liable as Saurabh was driving under her authority and for her purpose.

Saurabh will be exempted from liability under the principle of inevitable accident

Solution

Question 11

A has committed an offence

A has not committed an offence

B has committed an offence

B has not committed any offence

Solution

Question 12

Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A)

Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is not the correct explanation of (A)

(A) is true (R) is wrong

(A) is wrong (R) is wrong

Solution