Time Left - 01:00 mins

Legal Reasoning Quiz II Law of Tort II 17.03.2023

Attempt now to get your rank among 66 students!

Question 1

Principle: Intentional application of force to another person is actionable in law.

Facts: ‘P’ and ‘D’ are unknown to each other. When ‘P’ is about to sit on a chair, ‘D’ intentionally pulls it away as a result of which ‘P’ falls on the floor and is injured.

Question 2

Principle: A person is said to have committed assault when an apprehension is caused in the mind of a person that he is about to use physical force against his body.

Facts: ‘A’ abuses ‘B’ while he was sitting in a moving train, by aggressively shaking his fists when ‘B’ was standing on the railway platform at a distance.

Question 3

Principle: Damage to a person without legal injury to that person is not actionable in the court of law.

Facts: Rahul is running a barber shop. Om started a barber shop adjacent to the school of Rahul. Many customers started using the services of Om rather than that of Rahul. Rahul sued Om for damages. Discuss the liability of Om.

Question 4

Principle: Legal injury without damage is actionable in court of law.

Facts: Salil went to cast his vote in a college election but was stopped by Rajan, member of opposite party to vote. Later on, the party in whose favour Salil wanted cast vote won the college elections but Salil sued the Rajan for damages to violate his right to vote. Is Rajan liable to pay damages?

Question 5

Direction: read the given passage and answer the questions that follow.

In case, a plaintiff voluntarily suffers some harm, he has no remedy for that under the law of tort and he is not allowed to complain about the same. The reason behind this defence is that no one can enforce a right that he has voluntarily abandoned or waived. This is popularly known as volenti non fit injuria. Consent to suffer harm can be express or implied.

In Hallv. Brooklands Auto Racing Club, the plaintiff was a spectator of a car racing event and the track on which the race was going on belonged to the defendant. During the race, two cars collided and out of which one was thrown among the people who were watching the race. The plaintiff was injured. The court held that the plaintiff knowingly undertook the risk of watching the race. It is a type of injury which could be foreseen by anyone watching the event. The defendant was not liable in this case.

In Padmavati v. Dugganaika, the driver of the jeep took the jeep to fill petrol in it. Two strangers took a lift in the jeep. The jeep got toppled due to some problem in the right wheel. The two strangers who took lift were thrown out of the jeep and they suffered some injuries leading to the death of one person. The conclusions which came out of this case were – that the master of the driver could not be made liable as it was a case of a sheer accident and the strangers had voluntarily got into the vehicle and the principle of Volenti non fit injuria was not applicable here.

However, for this defence to be available it is important to show that the consent of the plaintiff was freely given. If the consent was obtained under any compulsion or by fraud, then it is not a good defence and the consent must be given for an act done by the defendant.

(Source - https://blog.ipleaders.in/law-of-torts-compilation-part-1/#Volenti_non_fit_injuria)

A person invites his friend as guest to his house. The guest broke the dining set of the person. Can he sue the guest for trespass?

Question 6

Direction: read the given passage and answer the questions that follow.

In case, a plaintiff voluntarily suffers some harm, he has no remedy for that under the law of tort and he is not allowed to complain about the same. The reason behind this defence is that no one can enforce a right that he has voluntarily abandoned or waived. This is popularly known as volenti non fit injuria. Consent to suffer harm can be express or implied.

In Hallv. Brooklands Auto Racing Club, the plaintiff was a spectator of a car racing event and the track on which the race was going on belonged to the defendant. During the race, two cars collided and out of which one was thrown among the people who were watching the race. The plaintiff was injured. The court held that the plaintiff knowingly undertook the risk of watching the race. It is a type of injury which could be foreseen by anyone watching the event. The defendant was not liable in this case.

In Padmavati v. Dugganaika, the driver of the jeep took the jeep to fill petrol in it. Two strangers took a lift in the jeep. The jeep got toppled due to some problem in the right wheel. The two strangers who took lift were thrown out of the jeep and they suffered some injuries leading to the death of one person. The conclusions which came out of this case were – that the master of the driver could not be made liable as it was a case of a sheer accident and the strangers had voluntarily got into the vehicle and the principle of Volenti non fit injuria was not applicable here.

However, for this defence to be available it is important to show that the consent of the plaintiff was freely given. If the consent was obtained under any compulsion or by fraud, then it is not a good defence and the consent must be given for an act done by the defendant.

(Source - https://blog.ipleaders.in/law-of-torts-compilation-part-1/#Volenti_non_fit_injuria)

A person invites his friend as guest to his house. The guest broke the favourite dining set of the person. The person asked the guest to leave the house, however the guest started quarreling with his friend and refused to leave the house. Can the guest be sued as trespasser?

Question 7

Direction: read the given passage and answer the questions that follow.

In case, a plaintiff voluntarily suffers some harm, he has no remedy for that under the law of tort and he is not allowed to complain about the same. The reason behind this defence is that no one can enforce a right that he has voluntarily abandoned or waived. This is popularly known as volenti non fit injuria. Consent to suffer harm can be express or implied.

In Hallv. Brooklands Auto Racing Club, the plaintiff was a spectator of a car racing event and the track on which the race was going on belonged to the defendant. During the race, two cars collided and out of which one was thrown among the people who were watching the race. The plaintiff was injured. The court held that the plaintiff knowingly undertook the risk of watching the race. It is a type of injury which could be foreseen by anyone watching the event. The defendant was not liable in this case.

In Padmavati v. Dugganaika, the driver of the jeep took the jeep to fill petrol in it. Two strangers took a lift in the jeep. The jeep got toppled due to some problem in the right wheel. The two strangers who took lift were thrown out of the jeep and they suffered some injuries leading to the death of one person. The conclusions which came out of this case were – that the master of the driver could not be made liable as it was a case of a sheer accident and the strangers had voluntarily got into the vehicle and the principle of Volenti non fit injuria was not applicable here.

However, for this defence to be available it is important to show that the consent of the plaintiff was freely given. If the consent was obtained under any compulsion or by fraud, then it is not a good defence and the consent must be given for an act done by the defendant.

(Source - https://blog.ipleaders.in/law-of-torts-compilation-part-1/#Volenti_non_fit_injuria)

A 40 year old married woman noticed a lump in her breast but this pain does not affect her uterus. After the operation, she saw that her uterus has been removed. She sued the hospital authorities who took the plea of volenti non fit injuria. Discuss.

Question 8

Direction: read the given passage and answer the questions that follow.

In case, a plaintiff voluntarily suffers some harm, he has no remedy for that under the law of tort and he is not allowed to complain about the same. The reason behind this defence is that no one can enforce a right that he has voluntarily abandoned or waived. This is popularly known as volenti non fit injuria. Consent to suffer harm can be express or implied.

In Hallv. Brooklands Auto Racing Club, the plaintiff was a spectator of a car racing event and the track on which the race was going on belonged to the defendant. During the race, two cars collided and out of which one was thrown among the people who were watching the race. The plaintiff was injured. The court held that the plaintiff knowingly undertook the risk of watching the race. It is a type of injury which could be foreseen by anyone watching the event. The defendant was not liable in this case.

In Padmavati v. Dugganaika, the driver of the jeep took the jeep to fill petrol in it. Two strangers took a lift in the jeep. The jeep got toppled due to some problem in the right wheel. The two strangers who took lift were thrown out of the jeep and they suffered some injuries leading to the death of one person. The conclusions which came out of this case were – that the master of the driver could not be made liable as it was a case of a sheer accident and the strangers had voluntarily got into the vehicle and the principle of Volenti non fit injuria was not applicable here.

However, for this defence to be available it is important to show that the consent of the plaintiff was freely given. If the consent was obtained under any compulsion or by fraud, then it is not a good defence and the consent must be given for an act done by the defendant.

(Source - https://blog.ipleaders.in/law-of-torts-compilation-part-1/#Volenti_non_fit_injuria)

A spectator can sue the cricketer in case the ball hit and injured the spectator.

Question 9

Direction: read the given passage and answer the questions that follow.

In case, a plaintiff voluntarily suffers some harm, he has no remedy for that under the law of tort and he is not allowed to complain about the same. The reason behind this defence is that no one can enforce a right that he has voluntarily abandoned or waived. This is popularly known as volenti non fit injuria. Consent to suffer harm can be express or implied.

In Hallv. Brooklands Auto Racing Club, the plaintiff was a spectator of a car racing event and the track on which the race was going on belonged to the defendant. During the race, two cars collided and out of which one was thrown among the people who were watching the race. The plaintiff was injured. The court held that the plaintiff knowingly undertook the risk of watching the race. It is a type of injury which could be foreseen by anyone watching the event. The defendant was not liable in this case.

In Padmavati v. Dugganaika, the driver of the jeep took the jeep to fill petrol in it. Two strangers took a lift in the jeep. The jeep got toppled due to some problem in the right wheel. The two strangers who took lift were thrown out of the jeep and they suffered some injuries leading to the death of one person. The conclusions which came out of this case were – that the master of the driver could not be made liable as it was a case of a sheer accident and the strangers had voluntarily got into the vehicle and the principle of Volenti non fit injuria was not applicable here.

However, for this defence to be available it is important to show that the consent of the plaintiff was freely given. If the consent was obtained under any compulsion or by fraud, then it is not a good defence and the consent must be given for an act done by the defendant.

(Source - https://blog.ipleaders.in/law-of-torts-compilation-part-1/#Volenti_non_fit_injuria)

A person who agrees to publish his life story cannot sue the publisher later on for defamation.

Question 10

Principle: Consent is a good defence in a civil action for tort but the act should be the same for which consent was given.

Facts: ‘B’ was formally invited by ‘A’ to his house. ‘B’ after sitting for some time in drawing room, moved to the bed room of the house. ‘A’ sued ‘B’ for trespass.

Question 11

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

Facts: Tej was employed by Ram for some work. While working, Tej engaged in fight with Tanuj, a bystander. During the fight, Tanuj was seriously injured.. Tanuj sued Ram for damages. Is Ram liable for the act of Tej?

Question 12

Direction: read the given passage and answer the questions that follow.

Defamation as the meaning of the word suggests is an injury to the reputation of a person resulting from a statement which is false. A man’s reputation is treated as his property and if any person poses damage to property he is liable under the law, similarly, a person injuring the reputation of a person is also liable under the law. The very first essential of the offense of defamation is that the statement must be defamatory i.e. which tends to lower the reputation of the plaintiff.

The test to check if a particular statement is defamatory or not will depend upon how the right thinking members of society are likely to take it. Further, a person cannot take a defense that the statement was not intended to be defamatory, although it caused a feeling of hatred, contempt or dislike. Illustration - A publishes an advertisement in a local newspaper stating false information that the company of B has committed fraud of Rs 20,00,000. Now, this statement will amount to defamation as this newspaper will be read by many readers and will surely injure the reputation of B’s company However, it is to be noted that mere hasty expression spoken in anger, or vulgar abuse to which no hearer would attribute any set purpose to injure the character would not amount to defaming a person.

In an action for defamation, the plaintiff has to prove that the statement of which he complains referred to him, it will be immaterial that the defendant did not intend to defame the plaintiff. If the person to whom the statement was published could reasonably infer that the statement referred to him, the defendant will then be liable.

In the case of T.V., Ramasubha Iyer v. A.M.A Mohindeen Court held the defendants liable for publishing a statement without any intention to defame the defendants. The statement mentioned that a particular person carrying business of Agarbathis to Ceylon has been arrested for the offense of smuggling. The plaintiff was also one of the people carrying on a similar business, and as a result of this statement his reputation also severely damaged.

Publication of defamatory statement to some person other than the person defamed is a most important aspect for making any person liable, and unless that is done, no action for defamation will lie. However, if a third person wrongfully reads a letter meant for the plaintiff, then the defendant likely to be liable. But if the defamatory letter sent to the plaintiff is likely to be read by somebody else, there will be a valid publication.

Forms of Defamation can be slander i.e., the publication of a defamatory statement in a transient form and libel which is the representation made in some permanent form.

(Source - https://blog.ipleaders.in/law-of-torts-compilation-part-1/#Volenti_non_fit_injuria)

Defamation made through writing is called –

Question 13

Direction: read the given passage and answer the questions that follow.

Defamation as the meaning of the word suggests is an injury to the reputation of a person resulting from a statement which is false. A man’s reputation is treated as his property and if any person poses damage to property he is liable under the law, similarly, a person injuring the reputation of a person is also liable under the law. The very first essential of the offense of defamation is that the statement must be defamatory i.e. which tends to lower the reputation of the plaintiff.

The test to check if a particular statement is defamatory or not will depend upon how the right thinking members of society are likely to take it. Further, a person cannot take a defense that the statement was not intended to be defamatory, although it caused a feeling of hatred, contempt or dislike. Illustration - A publishes an advertisement in a local newspaper stating false information that the company of B has committed fraud of Rs 20,00,000. Now, this statement will amount to defamation as this newspaper will be read by many readers and will surely injure the reputation of B’s company However, it is to be noted that mere hasty expression spoken in anger, or vulgar abuse to which no hearer would attribute any set purpose to injure the character would not amount to defaming a person.

In an action for defamation, the plaintiff has to prove that the statement of which he complains referred to him, it will be immaterial that the defendant did not intend to defame the plaintiff. If the person to whom the statement was published could reasonably infer that the statement referred to him, the defendant will then be liable.

In the case of T.V., Ramasubha Iyer v. A.M.A Mohindeen Court held the defendants liable for publishing a statement without any intention to defame the defendants. The statement mentioned that a particular person carrying business of Agarbathis to Ceylon has been arrested for the offense of smuggling. The plaintiff was also one of the people carrying on a similar business, and as a result of this statement his reputation also severely damaged.

Publication of defamatory statement to some person other than the person defamed is a most important aspect for making any person liable, and unless that is done, no action for defamation will lie. However, if a third person wrongfully reads a letter meant for the plaintiff, then the defendant likely to be liable. But if the defamatory letter sent to the plaintiff is likely to be read by somebody else, there will be a valid publication.

Forms of Defamation can be slander i.e., the publication of a defamatory statement in a transient form and libel which is the representation made in some permanent form.

(Source - https://blog.ipleaders.in/law-of-torts-compilation-part-1/#Volenti_non_fit_injuria)

If an employer scolds his employee for not coming on time in front of the whole staff, then the employee –

Question 14

Direction: read the given passage and answer the questions that follow.

Defamation as the meaning of the word suggests is an injury to the reputation of a person resulting from a statement which is false. A man’s reputation is treated as his property and if any person poses damage to property he is liable under the law, similarly, a person injuring the reputation of a person is also liable under the law. The very first essential of the offense of defamation is that the statement must be defamatory i.e. which tends to lower the reputation of the plaintiff.

The test to check if a particular statement is defamatory or not will depend upon how the right thinking members of society are likely to take it. Further, a person cannot take a defense that the statement was not intended to be defamatory, although it caused a feeling of hatred, contempt or dislike. Illustration - A publishes an advertisement in a local newspaper stating false information that the company of B has committed fraud of Rs 20,00,000. Now, this statement will amount to defamation as this newspaper will be read by many readers and will surely injure the reputation of B’s company However, it is to be noted that mere hasty expression spoken in anger, or vulgar abuse to which no hearer would attribute any set purpose to injure the character would not amount to defaming a person.

In an action for defamation, the plaintiff has to prove that the statement of which he complains referred to him, it will be immaterial that the defendant did not intend to defame the plaintiff. If the person to whom the statement was published could reasonably infer that the statement referred to him, the defendant will then be liable.

In the case of T.V., Ramasubha Iyer v. A.M.A Mohindeen Court held the defendants liable for publishing a statement without any intention to defame the defendants. The statement mentioned that a particular person carrying business of Agarbathis to Ceylon has been arrested for the offense of smuggling. The plaintiff was also one of the people carrying on a similar business, and as a result of this statement his reputation also severely damaged.

Publication of defamatory statement to some person other than the person defamed is a most important aspect for making any person liable, and unless that is done, no action for defamation will lie. However, if a third person wrongfully reads a letter meant for the plaintiff, then the defendant likely to be liable. But if the defamatory letter sent to the plaintiff is likely to be read by somebody else, there will be a valid publication.

Forms of Defamation can be slander i.e., the publication of a defamatory statement in a transient form and libel which is the representation made in some permanent form.

(Source - https://blog.ipleaders.in/law-of-torts-compilation-part-1/#Volenti_non_fit_injuria)

Sending a defamatory letter to a person, written in Urdu knowing that such person do not know Urdu –

Question 15

Direction: read the given passage and answer the questions that follow.

Defamation as the meaning of the word suggests is an injury to the reputation of a person resulting from a statement which is false. A man’s reputation is treated as his property and if any person poses damage to property he is liable under the law, similarly, a person injuring the reputation of a person is also liable under the law. The very first essential of the offense of defamation is that the statement must be defamatory i.e. which tends to lower the reputation of the plaintiff.

The test to check if a particular statement is defamatory or not will depend upon how the right thinking members of society are likely to take it. Further, a person cannot take a defense that the statement was not intended to be defamatory, although it caused a feeling of hatred, contempt or dislike. Illustration - A publishes an advertisement in a local newspaper stating false information that the company of B has committed fraud of Rs 20,00,000. Now, this statement will amount to defamation as this newspaper will be read by many readers and will surely injure the reputation of B’s company However, it is to be noted that mere hasty expression spoken in anger, or vulgar abuse to which no hearer would attribute any set purpose to injure the character would not amount to defaming a person.

In an action for defamation, the plaintiff has to prove that the statement of which he complains referred to him, it will be immaterial that the defendant did not intend to defame the plaintiff. If the person to whom the statement was published could reasonably infer that the statement referred to him, the defendant will then be liable.

In the case of T.V., Ramasubha Iyer v. A.M.A Mohindeen Court held the defendants liable for publishing a statement without any intention to defame the defendants. The statement mentioned that a particular person carrying business of Agarbathis to Ceylon has been arrested for the offense of smuggling. The plaintiff was also one of the people carrying on a similar business, and as a result of this statement his reputation also severely damaged.

Publication of defamatory statement to some person other than the person defamed is a most important aspect for making any person liable, and unless that is done, no action for defamation will lie. However, if a third person wrongfully reads a letter meant for the plaintiff, then the defendant likely to be liable. But if the defamatory letter sent to the plaintiff is likely to be read by somebody else, there will be a valid publication.

Forms of Defamation can be slander i.e., the publication of a defamatory statement in a transient form and libel which is the representation made in some permanent form.

(Source - https://blog.ipleaders.in/law-of-torts-compilation-part-1/#Volenti_non_fit_injuria)

Sheena wrote filthy word about Anuj in her diary daily. Does this amount to defamation?

Question 16

Direction: read the given passage and answer the questions that follow.

Defamation as the meaning of the word suggests is an injury to the reputation of a person resulting from a statement which is false. A man’s reputation is treated as his property and if any person poses damage to property he is liable under the law, similarly, a person injuring the reputation of a person is also liable under the law. The very first essential of the offense of defamation is that the statement must be defamatory i.e. which tends to lower the reputation of the plaintiff.

The test to check if a particular statement is defamatory or not will depend upon how the right thinking members of society are likely to take it. Further, a person cannot take a defense that the statement was not intended to be defamatory, although it caused a feeling of hatred, contempt or dislike. Illustration - A publishes an advertisement in a local newspaper stating false information that the company of B has committed fraud of Rs 20,00,000. Now, this statement will amount to defamation as this newspaper will be read by many readers and will surely injure the reputation of B’s company However, it is to be noted that mere hasty expression spoken in anger, or vulgar abuse to which no hearer would attribute any set purpose to injure the character would not amount to defaming a person.

In an action for defamation, the plaintiff has to prove that the statement of which he complains referred to him, it will be immaterial that the defendant did not intend to defame the plaintiff. If the person to whom the statement was published could reasonably infer that the statement referred to him, the defendant will then be liable.

In the case of T.V., Ramasubha Iyer v. A.M.A Mohindeen Court held the defendants liable for publishing a statement without any intention to defame the defendants. The statement mentioned that a particular person carrying business of Agarbathis to Ceylon has been arrested for the offense of smuggling. The plaintiff was also one of the people carrying on a similar business, and as a result of this statement his reputation also severely damaged.

Publication of defamatory statement to some person other than the person defamed is a most important aspect for making any person liable, and unless that is done, no action for defamation will lie. However, if a third person wrongfully reads a letter meant for the plaintiff, then the defendant likely to be liable. But if the defamatory letter sent to the plaintiff is likely to be read by somebody else, there will be a valid publication.

Forms of Defamation can be slander i.e., the publication of a defamatory statement in a transient form and libel which is the representation made in some permanent form.

(Source - https://blog.ipleaders.in/law-of-torts-compilation-part-1/#Volenti_non_fit_injuria)

The test to check if a particular statement is defamatory or not will depend upon how –

Question 17

Principle:Whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said to defame that person.

Facts: Reema does not like Rekha. She daily writes her personal diary in which she has also mentioned about Rekha and that Rekha habitually steals the articles of other, which is also true. One day, Rekha got the diary of Reema and read the same. She sued Reema for defamation. Is Reema liable?

Question 18

Principle: A careless person is liable for his negligence when he owes a duty of care towards others.

Facts: A truck driver is driving a truck in his lane, he saw a cyclist coming from opposite direction and changed his lane. Eventually, the cyclist realised that he was pedalling across the wrong lane and suddenly moved to his lane, resulting in his accident. He sued the truck driver, discuss the liability of the truck driver.

  • 66 attempts
  • 0 upvotes
  • 0 comments
Mar 17CLAT UG