Law Of Torts — Part 1 MCQs with Explanations

The correct answer is D: Only (A) and (B). Let's break down why: Strict liability means a defendant is responsible for harm caused by their actions or possessions, even if they weren't negligent or didn't intend to cause harm. Option A: Non-natural use of land: This is a key element. It means the defendant was using their land in a way that isn't typical or ordinary. For example, storing large quantities of explosives would be considered a non-natural use. Option B: Escape of a dangerous thing: This is another crucial element. The "dangerous thing" (something likely to cause harm if it escapes) must escape from the defendant's property and cause damage elsewhere. Option C: Negligence of the defendant: This is where strict liability differs from negligence. In strict liability, you don't need to prove the defendant was careless or negligent. The fact that a dangerous thing escaped from a non-natural use of land is enough to establish liability. Therefore, both a non-natural use of land AND the escape of a dangerous thing are required to establish strict liability.

The Latin phrase 'Injuria Sine Damno' literally translates to 'Infringement of legal right without damages'. In legal terms, it refers to a situation where a person's legal rights have been violated or infringed upon, even though there may not be any actual physical or monetary loss or damages suffered by that person. Option B: Damages without infringement of legal right is not correct because the Latin phrase does not refer to damages occurring without a legal right being infringed. Option C: Both (A) and (B) is not correct because Option B is not accurate as explained above. Option D: All of the above is not the correct answer as explained above. Given the options provided, the correct answer is Option A: Infringement of legal right without damages.

Criminal conspiracy is committed when two or more persons agree to do an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. In this case, X and Y agreed to commit theft , which is clearly an illegal act under criminal law. For the offence of criminal conspiracy , the agreement itself is sufficient ; it is not necessary that the illegal act should actually be carried out . Abetment by conspiracy requires some act or illegal omission in pursuance of the conspiracy, which is absent here. There is also no instigation involved in the given facts. Hence, even though no theft was committed, X and Y are guilty of criminal conspiracy , making Option B the correct answer.

Liability in Tort arises when there is a violation of a right in rem (a right against the world at large) and a breach of a legal duty . Right in rem refers to a right enforceable against everyone, such as the right to personal safety or property. If this right is violated, the injured party can seek remedies under tort law. Breach of a legal duty occurs when a person fails to fulfill a duty imposed by law, resulting in harm to another party. This is a fundamental principle of tort law. Why Not the Other Options? Option A: 1 only – While the violation of a right in rem is an essential aspect, it is not the sole criterion for tort liability. A breach of legal duty is also necessary. Option C: 2 and 3 – A right in personam (a right enforceable against a specific person) is associated with contract law rather than tort law. Therefore, this option is incorrect. Option D: 3 and 4 – Breach of an equitable obligation is relevant to equity and trust law, not tort law, making this option incorrect. Thus, Option B (1 and 3) is the correct answer as it correctly identifies the grounds for liability in tort.

Rookes v. Barnard is the correct answer to “The 'tort of intimidation' was propounded in”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Law Of Torts.

Mere knowledge does not imply consent to take risk is the correct answer to “The maxim 'scienti non fit injuria' means”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Law Of Torts.

Scott v. London & St. Katharine Docks Co. is the correct answer to “In which one of the following cases did the Court of Exchequer explain the principle of res ipsa loquitur”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Law Of Torts.

Section 122 of the Evidence Act is the correct answer to “Communications addressed by a husband to his wife are not, except with his consent, admissible in evidence by virtue of”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Law Of Torts.

Manju Bhatia v. NDMC is the correct answer to “Damages were awarded by the Supreme Court for breach of statutory duty in”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Law Of Torts.

Gross negligence and slight negligence is the correct answer to “The terms Culpalata and Culpalevis mean:”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Law Of Torts.

If a person's legal right is violated he can bring an action even though he has not suffered a loss is the correct answer to “What is the meaning of 'injuria sine damno'”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Law Of Torts.

Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation v. Secretary of State, India is the correct answer to “The distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign functions of the State was laid down in:-”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Law Of Torts.

Wrongful intention is the correct answer to “Which element is not required in the tort of defamation”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Law Of Torts.

a-4, b-3, c-1, d-2 is the correct answer to “Match List-I and List-II and select the correct answer by using the below the Lists: List I List II a. Consent 1. Nichols v. Marsland b. Inevitable Accident 2. Vaughan v. Taff Valde Rail Co. c. Act of God 3. Holmes v. Mather d. Statutory Authority 4. Hall v. Brookland Auto Racing Club”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Law Of Torts.

Privilege, truth, fair comment is the correct answer to “Which one of the following sets correctly identifies the specific defences available in action for defamation”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Law Of Torts.

Ashby v. White case is the correct answer to “"If the plaintiff has a right, he must of necessity have a means to vidicate and maintain it, and a remedy if he is injured in the exercise of enjoyment of it, and indeed it is a vain thing to imagine a right without a remedy : for want of right and want of remedy are reciprocal". The above-mentioned rule was laid down by Chief Justice Holt, in 1703 in”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Law Of Torts.

Bradford Corporation v. Pickles is the correct answer to “Even if the harm to the plaintiff has been caused maliciously no action can lie for the same unless the plaintiff can prove that he has suffered legal injuries. In which one of the following cases was this principle enunciated”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Law Of Torts.

Manufacturers have to pay damages to consumers whenever damage is caused by the products is the correct answer to “Which one of the following did not emerge from the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Law Of Torts.

Substance only is the correct answer to “Which one of the following statements is correct? Truth is a defence in defamation, if the statement is true in”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Law Of Torts.

Judicial decisions is the correct answer to “Law of Torts have developed mainly through”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Law Of Torts.

Joint & several is the correct answer to “The liability of joint tort feasors is”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Law Of Torts.

Yes, though this illness was not foreseeable but some physical harm was foreseeable is the correct answer to “A, though involved in a motor accident, remained physically unhurt but suffered Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, a psychiatric illness with which he had earlier suffered but which was then in remission. He claimed damages from the driver of the motor car. Will he succeed”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Law Of Torts.

Slanderous words are uttered by the characters on the dramatic stage is the correct answer to “Libel is addressed to the eye; slander to the ear. State which of the following statements are slander”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Law Of Torts.

Knowledge regarding the danger is consent is the correct answer to “Which of the following statements is false in connection with the legal principle "volunti non fit injuria"”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Law Of Torts.

Baker v. Bolton is the correct answer to “Which among the following cases is related to the rule that causing death of a person is not a tort”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Law Of Torts.

Is strict is the correct answer to “The liability of the owner of the cattle for cattle tress pass”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Law Of Torts.

Actionable per se is the correct answer to “Trespass to goods is”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Law Of Torts.

An unexpected injury which could not have been foreseen and avoided is the correct answer to “An inevitable accident means”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Law Of Torts.

Sends it in sealed envelope to B's wife is the correct answer to “In which one of the following situations 'A' will be liable for defamation? 'A' writes a letter containing a defamatory matter about 'B' and:”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Law Of Torts.

A crime & a tort both is the correct answer to “Conspiracy is”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Law Of Torts.

B would be liable because hospital staff were negligent in keeping the hospital equipment in proper order is the correct answer to “A patient is brought to a hospital maintained by B. The patient is to be operated upon. If as a result of faulty oxygen supply machine, the patient dies on the operation table, then:”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Law Of Torts.

Battery is the correct answer to “Which of the following is not defamation”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Law Of Torts.

An infringement of a right in rem of a private individual giving a right of compensation at the suit of the injured party is the correct answer to “Frazer has defined tort as”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Law Of Torts.

Salmond is the correct answer to “Who said that liability in law of tort arises only when the wrong is covered by anyone or the other nominated tort”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Law Of Torts.

a-4, b-1, c-2, d-3 is the correct answer to “Match the items of List I (name of case) with the items of List II (related topic) and choose the correct answer from the given below. List I (Name of case) List II (Related topic) a. Jone v. Boyce 1. Remoteness of damages b. Scott v. Shepherd 2. Medical negligence c. A. H. Khodwa v. State of Maharashtra 3. Nervous shock d. Victorian Railway Commissioner v. Coultas 4. Doctrine of alternative danger”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Law Of Torts.

1, 3 and 4 is the correct answer to “Which of the following are essential elements of the defence of fair comment in the tort of defamation? The matter commented on must be 1. Of public interest 2. An assertion of fact 3. An expression of opinion 4. Fair Select the correct answer using the given below:”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Law Of Torts.

Ashby v. White case is the correct answer to “Which of the following cases under the law of torts is related with the principle of injuria sine damnum”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Law Of Torts.

Release of one of them releases all the others, as cause of action being one & indivisible is the correct answer to “In case of joint tort feasors”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Law Of Torts.

Injunction is the correct answer to “Unliquidated damages is not the only remedy for a tort and that for some torts, it is not even the primary remedy. They are other remedies also. They are”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Law Of Torts.

Haynes v. Harwood is the correct answer to “Which one of the following famous cases is related to an exception to the application of the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria based on 'rescue' cases”. This question is standard in competitive examination syllabi for Law Of Torts.