Law Of Torts MCQ

Nuisance' is interference with a person's right relating to

ক

Possession

খ

Leave and licence

গ

Use and enjoyment of land

ঘ

Ownership

A civil wrong is one which gives rise to

ক

Civil proceeding (enforcement or right claimed by a party as against other party)

খ

Criminal proceeding (object of punishment of defaulting party for some act which he is accused)

গ

Both (A) and (B)

ঘ

None of above

Torts of conspiracy occur where:-

ক

Two or more persons combine to injure a third party by unlawful means

খ

Two or more persons combine to injure a third party by lawful means

গ

Two or more persons combine to help a third party by lawful means

ঘ

Two or more persons combine not to injure a third party by lawful means

For defamation

ক

Intention to defame is not necessary

খ

Intention to defame is necessary

গ

Statement made believing is to be innocent makes a difference

ঘ

Either (A) or (C)

With regard to the contractual capacity of a person of unsound mind, which one of the following statements is most appropriate?

ক

A person of unsound mind can never enter into a contract

খ

A person of unsound mind can enter into a contract

গ

A person who is usually of unsound mind can contract when he is at the time of entering into a contract, of sound mind

ঘ

A person who is occasionally of unsound mind can contract although at the time of making the contract, he is of unsound mind

When the plaintiff himself is a wrongdoer, he is not disentitled from recovering in tort unless some unlawful act or conduct on hisown part is connected with the harm suffered by him as part of the same transaction' is stated by

ক

Sir Garfield Pollock

খ

Sir Frederick Pollock

গ

Salmond

ঘ

Winfield

In which of the following cases, Lord Wilberforce opined that "It is necessary to consider three elements inherent in any claim for nervous shock: the class of persons whose claim should be recognized, the proximity of such persons to the incident and the means adopted by which shock is caused"?

ক

McLoughlin v. O'Brien, (1983) 1 AC 410

খ

Hambrook v. Stokes Brohters, (1925) 1 KB 141

গ

Alcock v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, (1991) 4 All ER 907

ঘ

Page v. Smith, (1995) 2 All ER 736

The joint liability in respect of joint tort-feasors arises in which one of the following circumstances? 1. Agency, when one person employs another to do an act which turns out to be a tort. 2. Vicarious liability, i.e., the liability arising from relations. 3. Joint action - where two or more persons combine together to commit an act which amounts to a tort. Select the correct answer using the given below:

ক

1 and 2

খ

2 and 3

গ

1, 2 and 3

ঘ

1 and 3

Which statement is correct for an act of tort?

ক

It is a civil wrong

খ

All civil wrongs are not tort

গ

It gives a right in rem

ঘ

All of the above

Match List-I with List-II with regard to tort of nuisance and answer by using below:

ক

<table class="table-style-1"> <tr> <td>List I</td> <td>List II</td> </tr> <tr> <td>a. Burden of proof, once nuisance is proved</td> <td>1. Prescription</td> </tr> <tr> <td>b. Remedy for the private nuisance</td> <td>2. Occupier</td> </tr> <tr> <td>c. Right to action for nuisance of a temporary nature</td> <td>3. Abatement</td> </tr> <tr> <td>d. Right to commit a private nuisance may be acquired</td> <td>4. Defendant</td> </tr></table> a-3, b-2, c-4, d-1

খ

a-2, b-4, c-3, d-1

গ

a-1, b-2, c-3, d-4

ঘ

a-4, b-3, c-2, d-1

Vicarious liability commensurates with that of

ক

Independent tort feasors

খ

Joint tort feasors

গ

Composite tort feasors

ঘ

Both (A) and (C)

When the negligence of two or more persons results in the same damage, this is called

ক

Composite Negligence

খ

Contributory Negligence

গ

Negligence by Chance

ঘ

Negligence by Choice

The "Absolute liability" theory as the basis for liability in tort for industrial injuries was propounded by:

ক

Blackburn J.

খ

V. R. Krishna Iyer. J.

গ

P. N. Bhagwati, J.

ঘ

Lord Atkin

The concept of absolute liability was developed by the Supreme Court of India in M. C. Mehta v. Union of India, the judgment of which was delivered by:

ক

Justice Chandrachud

খ

Justice Krishna Iyer

গ

Justice Kuldip Singh

ঘ

Justice Bhagwati

The essential characteristics of tort is, violation of

ক

Right in personam

খ

A contractual right

গ

Right in rem

ঘ

None of the above rights

X' was working at a place over which a crane swung carrying heavy stones. Both 'X' and his employer knew that the crane so swung and recognized the possibility of danger if a stone fell from the crane. No warning was given 'X' of the swinging time of the crane whenever this took place. Once a heavy stone fell from the swinging crane and injured 'X'. In a claim for torts, the employer pleaded that there was no liability on the basis of the principle volenti non fit injuria. This plea-

ক

Is not correct as knowledge of the risk is not the same thing as acceptance of the risk

খ

Is correct as 'X' knew the risk

গ

Is for the Judge to consider at his discretion

ঘ

Is quite novel without an authoritative decision for or against

For fixing vicarious liability of master in tort for the wrongs committed by servant, master servant relationship is determined on the basis of:

ক

Employment

খ

Payment of wages

গ

Control of master over servant's acts

ঘ

Conditions of service

A' was carelessly driving his car at 50 km/hr. at a busy street in the city and hit B injuring his leg. On these facts the Supreme Court of India held that 'A' is liable to pay compensation to 'B'. It means that the Supreme Court laid down the law that the injured party is entitled for compensation in all cases of:

ক

Car accidents at a busy place, if the driver was negligent

খ

Causing Injury in accidents by negligent driving of any vehicle

গ

Inflicting physical injury by negligence

ঘ

Negligent causing damage to another

In the case of a libel or slander of a partnership firm

ক

A suit is maintainable by the firm

খ

A suit is maintainable by the individual partners

গ

No suit is maintainable either by the firm or the individual partners

ঘ

None of the above

A was riding his bicycle on a rainy day on a road which had no street lights. He came in contact with a live wire lying on the road which was inundated with water and got electrocuted. A's wife brought an action against the Electricity Board for negligence.

ক

The Board is not liable as the accident happened because of the negligence of the cyclist

খ

The Board is not liable as the accident happened because of the negligence of a third party, as the Board argued that a third party tried to siphon off the electricity illegally, and negligently left the wire on the road

গ

The Board is not liable because of the rain and storm, and as such, it was an Act of God

ঘ

The Board is liable, as supplying electricity is an inherently dangerous act, and as such, the Board; is absolutely liable

One X wrote defamatory letter against Y, a copy of which he sent to the Chairman of the Municipal Committee and other for publication in a local newspaper in which it was duly published. Y sued X and the editor, publisher and management of the newspaper for damages. Subsequently, a sum of Rs. 5,000 was paid by the newspaper by way of damages to Y and an apology was also published in the newspaper. Thereupon Y withdrew his action against the newspaper but not against X. X pleads that the release of other joint tort-feasors amounted to his release also

ক

X is not to be released

খ

Unless it was shown that the compensation was paid on behalf of X, he cannot be released

গ

Since one of the joint tort-feasors was released, it automatically amounted to the release of the other

ঘ

X may also tender apologies

Principle: A common carrier owes to its passengers the highest degree of care which a prudent man would be expected to exercise under similar circumstances. Facts: A couple entered the premises of an amusement park after obtaining a ticket for entry and paid the special fare for the roller coaster ride. The lady received an electrical shock while she and her husband were boarding the roller coaster. She had to be admitted in the hospital for treatment. Her husband moves the court against the operator of the ride. Is the operator of the ride liable?

ক

Yes. The couple is in the position of invitees and so the operator of the ride is liable to any invitee in their premises

খ

No. The operator is duty bound to take care of the wellbeing of the persons only when the patrons sit inside the ride. The liability of the common carrier starts only after they occupy a seat in the ride

গ

Yes. The ride operator owed the highest degree of care to its patrons, or that degree of care which a prudent person would be expected to exercise in the maintenance, inspection and repair of such equipment

ঘ

No. As the contract has not commenced, the liability of the operator has not yet begun and hence he is not liable

As a result of a collision between two buses a passenger in one of the buses died. The accident occurred due to negligence of the drivers of both the buses. In a suit by the legal representative of the deceased against owners of both the buses, which one of the following statements is legally sustainable?

ক

Each owner of the buses is liable for the whole damage

খ

The owners of the buses are not joint tort-feasors

গ

Neither of the owner of the buses is liable as the defence of act of God applies

ঘ

Each owner of the buses was liable for one-half of the damage

Two dogs belonging to two different owners acting in concert attacked a flock of sheep and injured several sheep. In an action for damages brought against the owners of the dogs, if one of them put in defence claiming that he was liable for one-half only of the damage, then which one of the following statements is legally sustainable in the above case?

ক

Each owner of the dog was liable for the whole of the damage

খ

Each owner was responsible for one half of the damage

গ

Neither of the owners is liable for damage done by his dogs

ঘ

The owners themselves are not joint tort feasor

The defendants, employees of the Municipal Corporation opened a main hole in the street and in the evening left the mainhole open and covered it by a canvas shelter, unattended and surrounded by warning lamps. The plaintiff, an eight year old boy, took one of the lamps into the shelter and was playing with it there,when he stumbled over it and it fell into the mainhole. A violent explosion followed and the plaintiff sustained bum injuries. The defendants are:

ক

Not liable because injury to the plaintiff is not foreseeable

খ

Liable because they should have completed the work before they left

গ

Not liable because they acted reasonably

ঘ

Liable because injury resulted from a known source of danger even though through an unforeseeable sequence of events

In public nuisance, a private right of action lies:

ক

When they injury is merely consequential

খ

When there is proof of damage

গ

When the injury is particular, direct and substantial

ঘ

None of the above

Which one of the following is a correct statement? Nuisance recognises:

ক

The concept of no-fault liability

খ

Liability based only on fault

গ

Liability based only on imputability

ঘ

None of the above

Transfer of a chattel under a contract, the liability shall be regulated

ক

By the terms of the contract

খ

By tort for negligence

গ

By tort for negligence as well as the terms of the contract

ঘ

None of the above

Act of State means

ক

An exercise of power against an alien and neither intended nor purporting to be regally founded

খ

An exercise of power against his own subjects

গ

An exercise of power against the alien as well as his own subjects

ঘ

None of the above

If a person wants to bring an action under Law of Torts for the tort of public nuisance, he must have to prove that

ক

The injury was direct and substantial only to him

খ

The injury was criminal in nature

গ

The injury affects the public at large

ঘ

None of the above