Legal Reasoning

[Topic: Law of Torts] LA-O1

Legal Reasoning

Test Code

LA-01

Topic

Law of Torts

No. of Questions

25

Maximum Marks

25

Competitive score

20 and above

Time allowed

15 minutes

Test

1.

.co

Answers are provided in this file for self-evaluation.

A master is liable for the wrongs committed by his servants. It is called

b. Vicarious liability
c.

Concurrent liability

2.

CL

d. All the above

AT

a. Joint liability

In law of Torts, always unliquidated damages are awarded. The meaning of unliquidated
is

a. Not ascertainable

go

b. Approximately arrived at
c. Penal & exemplary
d. Both (a) and (b) above

3.

The Law of Torts has largely developed through

a. Judicial decisions
b. Customs
c.

Legislations

d. None of the above

4.

______are words which appear innocent, but contain a latent meaning which is
defamatory
a. Libel
b. Slander
c.

Innuendoes

d. None of the above

In an action for negligence, the plaintiff has to prove:

5.

b. Breach of duty by defendant

c. Legal injury because of breach
d. All of the above

If a newspaper published a defamatory article written by `X, who can be sued?

AT

6.

.co

a. Existence of a duty

a. Publisher of that newspaper

b. Printer of that newspaper
Mr. X only

CL

c.

d. Mr. X, Printer, Publisher and Editor

7.

______ is an act which is twisted, crooked, which is not straight and lawful
a. Tort

go

b. Crime
c.

Wrong

d. None of the above

8.

In criminal law intention is an essential constituent of offence. In Law of Torts

a. Intention is relevant
b. Intention is irrelevant
c.

Intention is relevant only in some torts

d. None of the above

9.

Defamation infringes a persons right to

a. Reputation
b. Pride
c.

Privilege

d. Status
10.

The act of unlawfully entering into anothers property

a. Breach of property

c.

Triplication

d. Trover
11.

The law of torts deals with

.co

b. Trespass

b. Money transactions
c.

Partnerships

AT

a. Injuries to person or property caused by failure to take reasonable care

12.

CL

d. Industrial production

Assertion (A) None should make unnatural use of his land.

Reason (R) It may prove fatal for the public at large.

go

a. Both A and R are true

b. Both A and R are false

c. A is true R is false

d. R is true A is false.

13.

Assertion (A) When right of a private individual has been infringed by other individual, it
is called tort.
Reason (R) When right of public at large has been infringed it is called crime.
a. Both A and R are true but R is not correct explanation of A
b. Both A and R are true and R is correct explanation of A
c. Both A and R are false
d. A is true R is false

14.

Which of the following is not correctly matched?

a. ubi Jus ibi Where there is a right there is damage
b. res ipsa loquitur things speak for themselves
c. damnum sine injuria damage without injury
d. injuria sine damnum injury without damage
Slander is a ______

15.

a. a crime

.co

b. a tort
c. a breach of contract

16.

AT

d. a breach of trust

Principle: If a professional doesnt take care like an ordinary prudent person, he is guilty
of negligence and shall have to pay compensation to those who suffer.
Fact: Kapoor, a businessman appointed a surgeon Dr. K.S. Pratap for completing surgery

CL

to remove deformation in the leg of his son, Amit. During the surgery an attendant nurse
left a small needle inside, which resulted in a serious abyss requiring second operation.
After the second operation, leg was shortened. Has the doctor committed any wrong?
a. No, he has not committed any wrong; it was the nurse who was negligent.
b. No, he has not committed any wrong; as such lapses are common in surgeries.

go

c. Yes, the doctor is guilty of medical negligence, as there is absence of due care
d. Yes, both the doctor as well as the nurse is liable.

17.

Principle: No one is responsible for unforeseen circumstances, but liable for not taking
due care.
Fact: Rahul, aged about 19 years, was playing cricket with his friends in housing societies
lane where they live. While playing he made a good shot, which hit a window of a new
Maruti car and broke the window. Has Rahul to pay for?
a. No, Rahul is not responsible, as it is common for boys to play street cricket.
b. Yes, Rahul is liable, as breaking window is a predictable consequence of playing
cricket on streets.
c. Yes, Rahul is liable, as he hit the shot which broke the window.
d. No, All the boys are liable to pay, not just Rahul.

18.

Principle: Servants negligence is masters responsibility.

Fact: In a shopping complex, Amir Ali has dry fruits shop in the basement. The shopping
complex remained closed on Saturday. Abeera Co. manages the complex. The
watchman forgot to close the wheel of reservoir on Friday night and the water overflowed.
No one noticed that incident. The water damaged the fruits in the shop of Amir Ali. From
whom, if any, Amir Ali may recover his loss?
a. Amir Ali should sue the watchman, as he was directly responsible
b. Amir Ali should sue Abeera & Co. for the watchmans negligence

c. Amir Ali cannot sue anybody, as his shop is in the basement.

19.

.co

d. Nobody is responsible to Amir Ali

Principle: Without lawful authority, if a person is restricted from moving in a direction in

which he is entitled to move, it amounts to an offence of wrongful restraint.
Fact: In view of the religious procession scheduled to be taken through the streets of the
city, police erected barricades on the main road to prevent the traffic movement.

AT

Consequently, A who had to reach the airport couldnt reach in time.

a. A can succeed, as the barricades on the road prevented him from moving freely.
b. A cannot succeed as religious processions are always authorized by the Government.
c. A can succeed, as he was not informed about the procession earlier.

Principle: A master is liable for the acts committed by his servant in the course of
employment.

Fact: A instructs his driver B to drive his vehicle from the office back to home. He is

go

20.

CL

d. A cannot succeed, as the barricades were installed under lawful authority

also instructed not to carry any unauthorized person in the car. B one day while driving
empty car back to home picks up his friend, C, who stays close to As house. In the
course of driving the car towards As house, he collides with a vehicle.C is injured in the
accident. Is A liable to compensate to C?
a. A shall be liable, because B was in the course of employment at the time of accident
b. A shall not be liable, B was not in the course of employment when he took C inside the
car.
c. C got into the car at his own risk, and therefore, he cannot sue anybody.
d. A shall not be liable, as he had instructed B not to give lift to unauthorized persons.

21.

Principle:
The owner of a land is entitled to the column of air space above the surface ad infinitum.
But, the right is restricted to such height as is necessary for the ordinary use and
employment of his land, and the structure on it.
Fact:
A had constructed a single-storeyed house on a corner site. He had no intention of
building an additional floor. B his neighbour, who ran an internet parlour got a hoarding
made, which protruded over As house at a height of around 6 feet above the terrace. A

sues B for trespass.

a. A will succeed since Bs act amounts to trespass.

c.

.co

b. A will not succeed since he was anyway not planning to build and additional storey.
A will not succeed since the hoarding is not obstructing him.

d. A will not succeed since B has a right to erect a hoarding.

22.

Principle: It is settled principle that an occupier should not do a dangerous act without

AT

adequate warning if he knows or suspects that a trespasser is present.

Factual Situation: A was cutting a large tree on his land. Some boys were fooling about
nearby. A paid no attention as the boys were clearly trespassers, when the tree fell, one
of the boys was hit by a falling branch and suffered injury.
The boy was illegally present and cannot have the protection of law.

b.

A was liable as he did not give warning of the danger likely to arise by the felling of

CL

a.

tree although he knew that the boy was present.

A is not liable as there is no duty to do good and warning a person who was illegally

go

c.

on the premises.

d.

A was carrying out his lawful profession on his own land and anyone came there, at

his peril. Hence A was not liable.

23.

Principle: Damages can be recovered for nervous shock.

st

Facts:Avinash on April 1 as a joke falsely told Balu that his father met with an accident
and was injured seriously. By reason of this misrepresentation, Balu suffered a violent
shock and his hair turned grey and his life was for some time in great danger. Later, Balu
intends to file suit against Avinsah. Advise
a. Balu can successfully plead the case on grounds of nervous shock
b. Balu cannot be successful in his suit, for he should have known that it is common for
people to play such pranks on April 1st

c.

Balu cannot be successful, as his nerves are really weak.

d. None of these
Principle: The employer is liable to pay compensation for the injuries suffered by
his workers, if the accident has arisen out of and in the course of employment. The
liability is absolute and the employer will not have any defences if the accident
results in death or total disablement.
Facts: Mr. Tharun is working as an unskilled worker in the furniture fabricating industry
run by Mr. Omar in Bangalore. While Mr. Tharun and his co-workers were working on the
preparation of a double decker iron cot, the thick iron sheet fell on the head of Mr.
Tharun. He suffered serious head injuries. He was hospitalized and he died in the

24.

CL

FACTS: Marcus threw an ignited missile into a crowded market place. The fiery missile
came down the shed of a vendor of ginger bread who in order to protect himself, caught it
dexterously and threw it away from him. It then fell on the shed of another merchant, who
in order to protect himself passed it on precisely in the same way, till at last it burst in

go

25.

AT

.co

hospital. In the Government Hospital, where Mr. Tharun was admitted, the doctors
delayed attending Mr. Tharun. It was also found out in the course of treatment that Mr.
Tharun was drunk at the time when the accident occurred.
a. The hospital and the Government are liable to pay compensation to the dependents
of Mr. Tharun as there was negligence on the part of the doctors.
b. Mr. Omar is not liable to pay any compensation to the dependents of Mr. Tharun as
he was drunk at the time of the accident.
c. Mr. Omar is liable to pay compensation as per the law to the dependents of Mr.
Tharun.
d. Mr. Omar can argue that the drunken condition of Mr. Tharun is the reason for his
death.
PRINCIPLE: A tort-feasor(wrong-doer) is liable if intended consequences of his act
are evidently foreseeable.

Brutuss face and put his eye out. Brutus sued Marcus. Decide.
a. Marcus is not liable as he did not foresee the injury suffered by Brutus.
b. Marcus is liable as he intentionally threw the missile into the market place.
c. Marcus is not liable as it was the merchant who ultimately threw the missile on
Brutus.
d. Marcus is not liable as the injury suffered by Brutus is of a remote consequence.

ANSWERS ON NEXT PAGE

1.b

2.a

3.a

4.c

5.d

11.a

12.a

13.a

14.a

15.b

6.a

7.a

8.c

9.a

10.b

Answer

16.

It is obvious from the facts that Dr. Pratap is guilty of medical negligence.

17.

As a 19 year old, Rahul should know that playing cricketing shots on a road is
likely to break windows of cars or houses.

18.

Since the watchman (servant) was negligent, his master (Abeera &Co.) is liable.

19.

The fact that the police had erected the barricade shows that there was lawful
authority to put it up to prevent entry into the main road. It is not a case of wrongful
restraint.

20.

B has done an unauthorized act (giving lift to C) in the course of his employment
(driving the car towards As house) Hence A is liable for the unauthorized act of B
done in the course of employment.

21.

6 feet height is necessary for ordinary use of land.

22.

Straightforward application of the principle

23.

Straightforward application of the principle

24.

Omar has to compensate Tharuns family, as the accident occurred in the course
of employment. That Tharun was drunk is no excuse.

.co

AT

CL

go

25.

Hints / Explanations

Q.No

Marcus is liable as he could have foreseen the consequences of throwing an

ignited missile.