Law Of Torts MCQ question and answer | Law MCQ question

Action of State vis-a-vis his own subjects has to be justified

Which of the following statements is/are correct with regard to 'absolute liability' principle laid down in M. C. Mehta v. Union of India. Answer by using the below:
(1) The principle was approved except as to quantum of damages in Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India
(2) The principle in determining compensation was applied in Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India
(3) The compensation to be awarded must have some broad correlation not only with magnitude and capacity of the enterprise but also with the harm caused by it was held in Deepak Nitrite v. State of Gujarat
(4) The principle is not followed in India because Parliament could not yet pass Public Liability Insurance Bill, 1991

The doctrine of common employment at present is applicable

Which one of the following limitations to the rule of Volunti non fit injuria is not correct?

There was a plea for damages against the Electricity Board when a cyclist was entrapped and electrocuted by a live wire. The Board tried to oppose the plea on ground that the wire was a diverted line laid by a stranger to siphon energy. Will the Court accept the defence of the Board?

In which one of the following cases has the Supreme Court laid down that where the enterprise is engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activities and harm results to anyone on account of accident, the enterprise is strictly liable to compensate all those who are affected by such accident?

Consider the following set of legal propositions:
1. A person can claim damages for all wrongs he has suffered.
2. A person can claim damages for wrongs only if they are caused intentionally.
3. A person can claim damages for a wrong if it is caused by infringement of this legal right.
4. A person can claim damage even if he has suffered no loss.
Of the above propositions:

Liability without fault

The Scienter rule applies in case of liability for animals which are

Principle: General rule is that it is for the plaintiff to prove negligence of the defendant. But if the thing causing the injury is under the control of defendant and injury is such as would not occur without negligence, law presumes negligence.
Facts: While performing a surgery for the removal of stones from the kidney of 'A', Dr. 'B' left a mop inside the body of 'A'. 'A' suffered acute pain and has to be operated again for the removal of the mop.
'A' sues Dr. 'B' for damages.