Law Of Torts MCQ question and answer

1

If a person wrote that all lawyers were thieves, he can be sued by

A) A few lawyers banding together B) A particular lawyer C) A particular lawyer if there was something in the article to point at the particular individual D) Any lawyer

Discuss

Answer & Solution

Answer: Option C

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

2

Under the Indian Law

A) Libel is actionable per se B) Slander is actionable per se C) Libel and Slander are actionable per se D) None of the above

Discuss

Answer & Solution

Answer: Option A

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

3

Which of the following is not correctly matched?

a. Damnum sine injuria	1. Town Area Committee v. Prabhu Dayal
b. Act of God	2. Smith v. Charles Baker
c. Defamation	3. Cassidy v. Daily Mirror Newspaper
d. Valenti non fit injuria	4. Haynes v. Harwood

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

Discuss

Answer & Solution

Answer: Option B

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

4

In his definition of 'Law of Tort', Winfield supports the principle given in the maxim:

A) Ubi remedium ibi jus B) Ubi jus ibi remedium C) Respondeat superior D) Damnum sine injuria

Discuss

Answer & Solution

Answer: Option B

Solution:

In his definition of the 'Law of Tort', Winfield supports the principle given in the maxim 'Ubi jus ibi remedium', which translates to 'Where there is a right, there is a remedy'. This principle underscores the idea that when a person's legal rights are violated or infringed upon, there should be a corresponding legal remedy available to provide relief or compensation for the harm suffered.

Option A: Ubi remedium ibi jus is not the correct answer. The correct maxim is 'Ubi jus ibi remedium'.

Option C: Respondeat superior refers to the legal doctrine of vicarious liability where an employer is held liable for the actions of their employees in certain circumstances.

Option D: Damnum sine injuria is a different legal principle referring to harm suffered without a legal injury or infringement of a right.

Given the options provided, the correct answer is Option B: Ubi jus ibi remedium.

5

According to the 'objective theory of negligence', negligence is a

A) State of mind B) Type of conduct C) State of heart D) All of these

Discuss

Answer & Solution

Answer: Option B

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

6

Which of the following statements is correct?

A) The liability of master and servant is joint B) The liability of master and servant is several C) The liability of master and servant is sometimes joint and sometimes several depending on circumstances D) The liability of master and servant is joint and several

Discuss

Answer & Solution

Answer: Option D

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

7

Which one of the following statements is not correct?

A) Joint tort-feasors are jointly and severally liable for the whole damage resulting from the tort B) If sued jointly, the damages may be levied from all or eithe C) To constitute a joint liability, the act complained of may neither be joint or separate D) The joint liability arises when one person employs another to do an act which turns out to be a tort

Discuss

Answer & Solution

Answer: Option C

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

8

A had constructed a temporary structure on a land belonging to the Municipal Corporation in which he ran a flourishing restaurant that was frequented by elites of the town. The Municipal Corporation constructed a huge Public Toilet in the plot adjoining A's famous restaurant. Does A have any remedy under Tort Law?

A) He has remedy to get the Municipal Corporations' action stopped as it constituted a nuisance B) He had the freedom to hedge the restaurant by putting up screens and boards C) He has no remedy because he did not own the plot D) None of the above

Discuss

Answer & Solution

Answer: Option C

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

9

P, owner of a car, asked his friend Q to drive the car to Bombay where he would join him. As the car was about five kilometers from Bombay it hit a pedestrian R, on account of Q's negligent driving and injured him seriously. R sued P for damages. In this case:

A) P is not liable B) The liability is solely of Q as P was not accompanying him C) Since Q was driving P's car, Q was under authority, P is liable D) P has the defense of inevitable accident

Discuss

Answer & Solution

Answer: Option C

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

10

Which of the following falls under the categories of Act of God

A) Storm and cyclone B) Extra ordinary rainfall or flood C) Lightning and thunder D) All of the above

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