Legal Aptitude - Law of Torts
Exam Duration: 45 Mins Total Questions : 30
Principle: A master is liable for the acts of his servant as long as he can control the working of his servant.
Factual Situation: A owned a taxi agency. She had hired B to drive one of her cars. On 1 January 2010, C called up Ns taxi agency and asked for a car to drop him from his house to his place of work. On the way, because of the driver's negligence, the car hit a road divider and C was injured. He sued A for damages.
- (a)
A is not liable because A was not driving the car
- (b)
A is not liable because A was not in the car
- (c)
A is liable because B was employed by her and was in her control
- (d)
A is not liable because B was driving as per C's instructions
Principle: An assault is an attempt to do a corporeal hurt to another, coupled with an apparent present ability and intention to do that act. A battery is the intentional and direct application of any physical force to the person of another.
Factual Situation: A was sitting on a chair reading a book. His friend, B decided to play a practical joke on him. Accordingly, he pulled the chair from under him. As a result of which, A landed on the floor.
- (a)
B's act amounts to a battery
- (b)
B's act amounts to an assault
- (c)
B's act amounts to an assault till the time A lands on the floor
- (d)
B's act amounts to neither battery nor assault because there was no intention
Select the option which does not constitute 'trespass to person'.
- (a)
Assault
- (b)
Battery
- (c)
Mayhem
- (d)
Conversion
In which of the following cases, 'P' did not owe duty of care to 'Q'.
- (a)
A bus owned by 'P', was being driven on the road. While the driver of bus tried to overtake a stationary truck, it skidded on the rough side of the road and overturned, injuring some passengers in the bus including 'Q'. 'Q' sued 'P' for damages.
- (b)
The conductor of an overloaded bus owned by P invited passengers to travel on the roof. As the bus overtook a cart, it swerved on the right side and 'Q' was injured by an overhanging branch of a tree. 'Q' sued 'P'
- (c)
'Q', after buying the ticket, was trying to board the bus belonging to 'P'. Just when 'Q' had placed his foot on the footboard, the conductor rang the bell signalling the driver to move, with the result that 'Q' fell down and suffered injuries. 'Q' sued 'P'
- (d)
'Q', who was travelling on his cycle, stopped by the side of the road to have a cup of tea. When he had put his foot on the pedal of the cycle, he was hit by a speeding motorcycle and was injured. 'Q' sued the driver of motorcycle 'P' for damages.
Assertion (A): Master is liable for the wrongs committed by a servant.
Reason (R): Servant acts on behalf of the master.
- (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 but R is false
- (d)
A is false but R is true
Principle: A citizen is expected to take reasonable duty of care while driving on the road and not to cause injuries to any person.
Factual Situation: 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?
- (a)
X is not liable as it was the negligence of Y
- (b)
The liability was solely of Y as X was not accompanying him
- (c)
As Y was driving under X's care and authority, X is liable
- (d)
X is not liable under the principle of inevitable accident
Principle: Contractual liability is completely irrelevant to the existence of liability in tort (civil wrong).
Factual Situation: X purchased a bottle of ginger beer from a retailer. As she consumed more than 3/4 of the contents of the bottle, she found a decomposed remains of a snail in the bottle. After seeing the remains of a snail, she fell sick on the thought of what she consumed. She sued the manufacturer of the beer for negligence, though there is no contractual duty on the part of the manufacturer.
- (a)
X cannot sue the manufacturer for negligence in the absence of a contract
- (b)
X cannot sue the retailer
- (c)
X can sue the manufacturer as he had duty to take care to see that bottles did not contain any other substance than the beer and hence liable to have broken that duty
- (d)
None of the above
Principle: A person is entitled to protect his property by using lawful means.
Factual Situation: Ramlal is growing valuable vegetables and fruits in his farm and he has fenced the farm to prevent cattles from entering the farm. 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. But 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.
- (a)
Ramlal is not liable, since the fence and the dog are lawful means of protecting the property
- (b)
Ramlal is not liable for the boy trespassing and getting badly injured in that process
- (c)
Ramlal is liable, since an ordinary barking dog would have sufficed for the purpose
- (d)
None of the above
Principle: One has to compensate another for the injury caused due to his wrongful act. The liability to compensate is reduced to the extent the latter has contributed to the injury through his own negligence. This is the underlying principle of contributory negligence.
Factual Situation: Veerappa owns a farm at a distance of half a furlong from the railway track. He stored in his land stacks of dried up straw after cultivation as is normal in farming. One day when the train was passing through the track, the driver was negligently operating the locomotive by allowing it to emit large quantities of spark. The high wind, normal in open fields, carried the sparks to the stacks stored by Veerappa and the stacks caught fire thereby causing extensive damage. Veerappa filed a suit against the railways claiming damages. The railways while acknowledging liability alleged contributory negligence on the part of Veerappa.
- (a)
Veerappa was not liable since his use of land was lawful
- (b)
Veerappa's farm being at a reasonable distance from the railway track, he cannot be held responsible for the high winds
- (c)
Veerappa should have anticipated the possibility and hence he is liable for contributory negligence
- (d)
None of the above
Rule A: An owner of land has the right to use the land in any manner he or she desires. The owner of the land also owns the space above and the depths below it.
Rule B: Rights above the land extend only to the point they are essential to any use or enjoyment of land.
Rule C: An owner cannot claim infringement of her property right if the space above his or her land is put to reasonable use by someone else at a height at which the owner would have no reasonable use of it and it does not affect the reasonable enjoyment of his or her land.
Shazia's case: Shazia owns a single-storeyed house in Ahmedabad which has been in her family for more than 75 years. The foundation of the house cannot support another floor and Shazia has no intention of demolishing her family home to construct a bigger building. Javed and Sandeep are business partners and own three-storey houses on either side of Shazia's house. Javed and Sandeep are also Ahmedabad's main distributors for a major soft drink company. They have erected a huge hoarding advertising their products, with the ends supported on their roofs but the hoarding also passes over Shazia's house at 70 feet and casts a permanent shadow on her terrace. Shazia decides to hoist a huge Indian flag, going up to 75 feet, on her roof. She files a case, asking the court to order Javed and Sandeep to remove the hoarding for all these reasons.
Applying only Rule B to Shazia's case, you would decide in favour of
- (a)
Javed and Sandeep because Shazia can easily hoist a flag below 70 feet
- (b)
Shazia, because she has the right to put her land to any use and the court cannot go into her intentions for hoisting a flag at 75 feet
- (c)
Shazia, because she has the absolute right to the space above her land
- (d)
Javed and Sandeep because hoisting a flag 75 feet above one's roof is not essential to the use and enjoyment of the land
Rule A: An owner of land has the right to use the land in any manner he or she desires. The owner of the land also owns the space above and the depths below it.
Rule B: Rights above the land extend only to the point they are essential to any use or enjoyment of land.
Rule C: An owner cannot claim infringement of her property right if the space above his or her land is put to reasonable use by someone else at a height at which the owner would have no reasonable use of it and it does not affect the reasonable enjoyment of his or her land.
Shazia's case: Shazia owns a single-storeyed house in Ahmedabad which has been in her family for more than 75 years. The foundation of the house cannot support another floor and Shazia has no intention of demolishing her family home to construct a bigger building. Javed and Sandeep are business partners and own three-storey houses on either side of Shazia's house. Javed and Sandeep are also Ahmedabad's main distributors for a major soft drink company. They have erected a huge hoarding advertising their products, with the ends supported on their roofs but the hoarding also passes over Shazia's house at 70 feet and casts a permanent shadow on her terrace. Shazia decides to hoist a huge Indian flag, going up to 75 feet, on her roof. She files a case, asking the court to order Javed and Sandeep to remove the hoarding for all these reasons.
Applying Rule C to Shazia's case, you would decide
- (a)
in her favour because hoisting a 75-feet-high flag is reasonable
- (b)
against her because hoisting a 75-feet-high flag is not reasonable
- (c)
against her because the hoarding is a reasonable use of the space above her land
- (d)
in her favour, because the permanent shadow cast by the hoarding affects the reasonable enjoyment of her land
Rule A: A person is an employee of another if the mode and the manner in which he or she carries out his work is subject to control and supervision of the latter.
Rule B: An employer is required to provide compensation to his or her employees for any injury caused by an accident arising in the course of employment. The words 'in the course of employment' means in the course of the work which the employee is contracted to do and which is incidental to it.
Case: Messrs Zafar Abidi & Co. manufactures bidis with the help of persons known as 'pattadars'. The pattadars are supplied tobacco and leaves by the company and they are required to roll them into bidis and bring the bidis back to the company. The pattadars are free to roll the bidis either in the factory or anywhere else they prefer. They are not bound to attend the factory for any fixed hours of work or for any fixed number of days. Neither are they required to roll up any fixed number of bidis. The company verifies whether the bidis adhere to the specified instructions or not and pays the pattadars on the basis of the number of bidis that are found to be of right quality. Aashish Mathew is one of the pattadars of the company. He was hit by a car just outside the precinct of the factory while he was heading to have lunch in a nearby food stall. Aashish Mathew has applied for compensation from the company.
If the pattadars were compulsorily required to work in the factory for a minimum number of hours every day, then the company would have been liable to pay compensation to Aashish Mathew if the latter
- (a)
had been assaulted and grievously hurt by his neighbour inside the factory precincts over a property dispute
- (b)
had slipped and fractured his arm while trying to commute on a city bus from his home to the factory
- (c)
had been injured while commuting on a bus provided by the company and which he was required by his contract to use every day
- (d)
had been caught in the middle of a cross-fire between the police and a gang of robbers while travelling to work on a city bus
Rule A: A person is an employee of another if the mode and the manner in which he or she carries out his work is subject to control and supervision of the latter.
Rule B: An employer is required to provide compensation to his or her employees for any injury caused by an accident arising in the course of employment. The words 'in the course of employment' means in the course of the work which the employee is contracted to do and which is incidental to it.
Case: Messrs Zafar Abidi & Co. manufactures bidis with the help of persons known as 'pattadars'. The pattadars are supplied tobacco and leaves by the company and they are required to roll them into bidis and bring the bidis back to the company. The pattadars are free to roll the bidis either in the factory or anywhere else they prefer. They are not bound to attend the factory for any fixed hours of work or for any fixed number of days. Neither are they required to roll up any fixed number of bidis. The company verifies whether the bidis adhere to the specified instructions or not and pays the pattadars on the basis of the number of bidis that are found to be of right quality. Aashish Mathew is one of the pattadars of the company. He was hit by a car just outside the precinct of the factory while he was heading to have lunch in a nearby food stall. Aashish Mathew has applied for compensation from the company.
Select the statement that could be said to be the most direct inference from specified facts
- (a)
The injury to Aashish Mathew did not arise in the course of employment as he was not rolling bidis at the time when he was hit by the car
- (b)
Since Ashish Mathew is a contracted pattadar with the company, it shall be presumed that the injury was caused by an accident in the course of employment
- (c)
Since there was no relationship of employment between Aashish Mathew and the company, the injury suffered by Aashish Mathew could not be held to be one arising in the course of employment notwithstanding the fact that the concerned injury was caused while he was involved in an activity incidental to his duties
- (d)
As the concerned injury was caused to Aashish Mathew while he was involved in an activity incidental to his duties, the injury did arise in the course of employment
Legal Principles:
1. Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do or doing something which a prudent or reasonable man would not do.
2. Defendant's duty of care depends on the reasonable foreseeability of injury which may be caused to the plaintiff on breach of duty.
Factual Situation: The defendants employees of the Municipal Corporation opened a manhole in the street and in the evening left the manhole open and covered it by a canvass shelter, unattended and surrounded by warning lamps. The plaintiff, an eight years old boy, took one of the lamps into the shelter and was playing with it there, when he stumbled over it and fell into the manhole. A violent explosion followed and the plaintiff suffered burn injuries. The defendants are
Decision:
- (a)
Not liable because the injury to plaintiff is not foreseeable
- (b)
Liable because they should have completed the work before they left
- (c)
Not liable because they acted reasonably
- (d)
Liable because they acted unreasonably
Legal Principle: Injuria Sine Damnum, i.e., injury (violation of legal right) without damage.
Facts: X, who was the returning officer at a polling booth in Amethi, wrongly refused to register a duly tendered vote of Y in the recent UP elections, even though Y was an eligible voter. The candidate in whose favour Y wanted to vote was declared elected.
Give the appropriate answer.
- (a)
Y can sue X on the ground that he was denied the right to cast vote, which is a fundamental right
- (b)
Y can sue X on the ground that he was denied the right to cast vote, which is a legal right
- (c)
Y cannot sue X because there is no injury or damage caused to Y
- (d)
Y cannot sue X because the candidate in whose favour he wanted to vote was declared elected
If an act is otherwise lawful, it does not become unlawful merely because the same has been done with an evil motive. This principle was enunciated in
- (a)
Bradford vs. Pickles (1895)
- (b)
Hollywood Silver Fox Farm vs. Emmet (1936)
- (c)
Christie vs. Davey (1893)
- (d)
None of the above
In which case the following rule was laid: 'We think that the true of law is that the person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. He can excuse himself by showing that the escape was owing to the plaintiff's default; or perhaps that the escape was the consequence of his major, or the act of God; but as nothing of this sort exists here, it is unnecessary to inquire what excuse would be sufficient.'
- (a)
Donoghue vs. Stevenson
- (b)
Rylands vs. Fletcher
- (c)
M. C. Mehta vs. Union of India
- (d)
Nichols vs. Marsland
'Tort is a civil wrong for which the remedy is a common law action for unliquidated damages, and which is not exclusively the breach of a contract or the breach of a trust or other merely equitable obligation.' This definition of 'Tort' is given by
- (a)
Clerk and Lindsell
- (b)
Salmond
- (c)
Sir Federick Pollock
- (d)
Winfield
Conspiracy is
- (a)
a crime
- (b)
a tort
- (c)
both a crime and a tort
- (d)
neither (a) nor (b)
The doctrine 'res-ipsa loquitur' was applied by the Supreme Court in
- (a)
Alka vs. Union of India
- (b)
Asa Ram vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
- (c)
Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Subhagwanti
- (d)
Jasbir Kaur vs. State of Punjab
A man's reputation is his property, and if possible, more valuable, than other property. It was so observed in
- (a)
Monson vs. Tunsands Ltd
- (b)
Dixon vs. Holden
- (c)
Youssoupoff vs. M. G. M. Pictures Ltd
- (d)
Austic vs. Dowling
Making fair comment on matters of public interest is
- (a)
a defence to an action for defamation
- (b)
no defence to an action for defamation
- (c)
a partial defence to an action for defamation
- (d)
none of the above
Action for defamation can be brought by
- (a)
an individual
- (b)
a partnership firm
- (c)
a company
- (d)
both (a) and (c)
The test of reasonable foresight in determining the remoteness of damages was first applied in
- (a)
Re: Polerris
- (b)
Wagon Mannd case
- (c)
Doughty vs. Turner Manufacturing Co. Ltd
- (d)
S. C. M. (United Kingdom) Ltd. vs. W. J. Whittal & Sons
The doctrine of vicarious liability applies when there is a
- (a)
relationship of principal and agent
- (b)
relationship of partners
- (c)
relationship of master and servant
- (d)
all of the above
Inevitable accident means
- (a)
an act of God
- (b)
an unexpected injury which could not have been foreseen and avoided
- (c)
an unexpected injury which could have been foreseen and avoided
- (d)
both (a) and (b)
Maxim 'Damnum sine injuria' means
- (a)
damage without infringement of legal right
- (b)
damage with infringement of legal right
- (c)
infringement of legal right without damage
- (d)
infringement of legal right with damage
The case of Reylands vs. Fletcher has laid down the principle of
- (a)
defamation
- (b)
conspiracy
- (c)
strict liability of the land owner
- (d)
none of the above
The liability of a master for acts of his servant in law of torts is called
- (a)
absolute liability
- (b)
tortious liability
- (c)
vicarious liability
- (d)
none of the above
The principle 'facts speak for themselves' is expressed by the maxim
- (a)
Ubi jus ibi remedium
- (b)
Res ipsa loquitor
- (c)
Novus actus interveniens
- (d)
Causa causams