Law Of Torts MCQ question and answer

81

Which of the following is a valid defence against an action in tort:

A) Mistake of fact B) Act of God C) Minority D) None of the above

Discuss

Answer & Solution

Answer: Option B

No explanation is given for this question. Let's Discuss on Board

82

The doctrine of apportionment of damages in cases of contributory negligence is

A) Applicable in India B) Applicable in England C) Applicable in India and England both D) Neither applicable in India nor in England

Discuss

Answer & Solution

Answer: Option C

No explanation is given for this question. Let's Discuss on Board

83

Which of the following is an important factor/are important factors to constitute the tort of nuisance?
1. Abnormal sensitivity on the part of the plaintiff.
2. Malice on the part of the defendant.
Select the correct answer using the given below:

A) 1 only B) 2 only C) Both 1 and 2 D) Neither 1 nor 2

Discuss

Answer & Solution

Answer: Option B

No explanation is given for this question. Let's Discuss on Board

84

The term of copyright in cinematograph films shall subsist

A) Twenty five years from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the film is published B) Sixty years from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the author dies C) Sixty years from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the film is published D) None of these

Discuss

Answer & Solution

Answer: Option C

No explanation is given for this question. Let's Discuss on Board

85

Which one of the following is a good defence for the tort of private nuisance?

A) The Plaintiff has come to the place of nuisance B) The activity is for the benefit of all C) The activity has been carried on for the last 20 years D) The plaintiff is very sensitive person

Discuss

Answer & Solution

Answer: Option D

No explanation is given for this question. Let's Discuss on Board

86

Two or more persons can be made joint tort-feasors, if they have:

A) A common design B) A common victim C) Same intention D) Similar intention

Discuss

Answer & Solution

Answer: Option A

No explanation is given for this question. Let's Discuss on Board

87

X an employer of M Bank was arrested by the police upon a written complaint of M Bank, but X was acquitted at session trial. X claimed damages and court held that (Guari Pd. v. Chartered Bank case)

A) Bank had a probable cause hence no false imprisonment B) Bank had a reasonable cause hence no false imprisonment C) As bank caused arrest of X hence bank is liable D) None of these

Discuss

Answer & Solution

Answer: Option A

Solution:

The case of Guari Pd. v. Chartered Bank pertains to the concept of false imprisonment. In this case, the court held that the bank had a probable cause for initiating the arrest of X, the employee. As a result, it was ruled that there was no false imprisonment on the part of the bank.

Option B: Bank had a reasonable cause hence no false imprisonment is not the correct answer as the case specifically refers to a probable cause rather than a reasonable cause.

Option C: As bank caused arrest of X hence bank is liable is not the correct answer as the court's ruling in the mentioned case established that there was no false imprisonment due to the probable cause presented by the bank.

Option D: None of these is not the correct answer as explained above.

Given the options provided, the correct answer is Option A: Bank had a probable cause hence no false imprisonment.

88

Match the items of List I with the items of List II and choose the correct answer from the given below.

List I	List II
a. Ex turpi causa non oritur	1. Immediate cause
b. do minimis non curat lex	2. From an immoral cause no action arises
c. Causa causans	3. From day to day
d. de die in diem	4. Law does not concern itself with trifles

A) a-3, b-2, c-4, d-1 B) a-2, b-4, c-1, d-3 C) a-1, b-2, c-4, d-3 D) a-4, b-1, c-3, d-2

Discuss

Answer & Solution

Answer: Option B

No explanation is given for this question. Let's Discuss on Board

89

Immunity from actions under statutory authority is

A) Restricted to harms which are obvious to the exercise of authority B) Restrict to harms which are incidental to the exercise of such authority C) Available not only for that harm which is obvious but also for that harm which is incidental to the exercise of such authority D) Both (A) and (B)

Discuss

Answer & Solution

Answer: Option C

No explanation is given for this question. Let's Discuss on Board

90

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was applied by the Supreme Court in

A) Jasbir Kaur v. State of Punjab B) Alka v. Union of India C) Asha Ram v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi D) Muncipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti

Discuss

Answer & Solution

Answer: Option D

No explanation is given for this question. Let's Discuss on Board

Law Of Torts MCQ question and answer | Law MCQ question