Tort MCQ Quiz in తెలుగు - Objective Question with Answer for Tort - ముఫ్త్ [PDF] డౌన్‌లోడ్ కరెన్

Key Points

Mens rea: - Mens rea, or the intention to commit a wrongful act, is not a necessary element of a tort. Tort law primarily focuses on the wrongful act itself and its consequences, rather than the perpetrator's intention. This distinguishes torts from criminal offenses, where mens rea is a critical component. - In tort law, liability can often be established based on negligence or strict liability, without needing to prove the defendant's intent to harm. Wrongful act: - A wrongful act, or tortious act, is a fundamental element of tort. It refers to an action or omission that infringes on the rights of another, leading to civil legal liability. Without a wrongful act, there cannot be a tort.

Damage: - Damage, or harm suffered by the plaintiff, is another essential element of tort. The purpose of tort law is to provide remedies for the injuries or damages suffered by individuals due to the wrongful acts of others. Without demonstrable damage, there is typically no basis for a tort claim.

Remedy: - The provision of a remedy is a key aspect of tort law. The law seeks to provide a form of redress to the injured party, usually in the form of monetary compensation (damages) or, in some cases, an injunction to prevent further harm. The availability of a remedy confirms the presence of a legal wrong that needs to be addressed.

Gloucester Grammar School Case  is not related to the 'Tort of Negligence'

Key Points

Gloucester Grammar School Case

• The Gloucester Grammar School Case is not related to the 'Tort of Negligence'.
• Instead, it is a foundational case in English law that deals with the concept of economic loss and competition, not negligence.
• It involved a dispute where a schoolmaster set up a rival school, leading to a loss of students (and thus, income) for the original school.
• The case is often cited in discussions about the law of economic torts, specifically regarding the legality of competitive behavior and the limits of lawful competition.

Additional Information

Donoghue V/s Stevenson:

• This is a landmark case in the development of negligence law in the UK and worldwide.
• It established the principle that one owes a duty of care to those who could be foreseeably harmed by one's actions or inactions, famously illustrated by the case of a snail found in a bottle of ginger beer.
• This case is foundational to the modern law of negligence.

Municipal Corporation of Delhi V/s Subhagvanti:

• This case is related to negligence, specifically in the context of liability of public bodies.
• It involved the collapse of a clock tower in Chandni Chowk, Delhi, causing several fatalities.
• The court held the Municipal Corporation of Delhi liable for negligence in failing to maintain the structure, thereby establishing the principle that public bodies can be held to account for negligence.

Ramesh Kumar Nayak V/s Union of India:

• This case also pertains to negligence, particularly in the context of employer's liability for the acts of its employees.
• It illustrates the principle that employers (including the government or its agencies, in this case) can be held liable for negligent acts committed by their employees in the course of their employment.

The Gloucester Grammar School Case's relevance to economic loss and competition, as opposed to the direct infliction of harm or injury through negligence, sets it apart from the other options, making it the correct answer as the case not related to the 'Tort of Negligence'.

The correct option is 'A-IV, B-III, C-I, D-II'.

Key Points

Here is the correct match of Rules with their respective Explanation:

1. A. Rule of Foreseeability Test → IV. Wagon Mound No. 1 case

   • The rule of foreseeability was established in the Wagon Mound No. 1 case. It states that liability is limited to damages that are reasonably foreseeable.

2. B. Rule of Proximity → III. Negligence

   • Proximity is a key element in establishing a duty of care in negligence cases. It refers to the closeness or relationship between the defendant and the claimant, determining whether a duty of care exists.

3. C. Tort of Conspiracy → I. Two or more persons combine to injure a third party by unlawful means

   • The tort of conspiracy involves two or more persons agreeing to use unlawful means to harm a third party.

4. D. Test of Directness → II. Re Polemis

   • The test of directness, from the Re Polemis case, holds that a defendant is liable for all direct consequences of their negligent actions, regardless of whether they were foreseeable.

The correct answer is 'A right in rem.'

Key Points

• Tort as a violation of a right in rem:
  • A tort is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act.
  • It is a violation of a right in rem, which means it is a right exercisable against the world at large, rather than a specific individual.
  • Examples include rights related to property, personal safety, and reputation.

Additional Information

• Other Options:
  • A right in personam:
    • This refers to a right against a specific person or entity, such as a contractual right.
    • Torts are not typically classified under rights in personam as they are not limited to specific individuals.
  • Both right in personam and a right in rem:
    • This option is incorrect because a tort specifically involves a right in rem, not both.
  • Neither a right in personam nor a right in rem:
    • This option is incorrect as it contradicts the fundamental nature of torts being a violation of a right in rem.

The correct answer is 'All of them are essential ingredients.'

Key Points

• Overview of the Tort of Negligence:
  • Negligence is a legal concept in tort law where a person fails to exercise a level of care that a reasonably prudent person would in similar circumstances, leading to harm or damage to another person.
  • The tort of negligence is fundamental in personal injury cases and is crucial for establishing liability.
• Duty of Care:
  • One must owe a duty of care towards another. This means a legal obligation to ensure the safety or well-being of others.
  • Without establishing a duty of care, a negligence claim cannot succeed.
• Breach of Duty:
  • One must commit a breach of that duty. This breach occurs when a person fails to meet the standard of care required by law.
  • It involves proving that the actions or inactions were not what a reasonable person would have done in similar circumstances.
• Damage as a Consequence:
  • The other person must suffer damage as a consequence of the breach. This means there must be a direct link between the breach of duty and the harm caused.
  • Without proving damage, even if there is a breach of duty, a negligence claim cannot succeed.

Additional Information

• Explanation of Incorrect Options:
  • Option 1: Only the (a) is an essential ingredient - Incorrect because all three elements (duty of care, breach of duty, and damage) must be present to establish negligence.
  • Option 2: None of them is an essential ingredient - Incorrect as it contradicts the basic principles of negligence, which require these elements.
  • Option 4: Even if the first is absent the tort of negligence is committed - Incorrect because without a duty of care, there can be no breach or resultant damage, thus no negligence.

The correct answer is 'Salmond'

Key Points

• Explanation of Salmond's View:
  • Salmond holds the view that there is no general law of tort but rather a collection of specific torts. This means that each tort is a distinct legal wrong, and there is no overarching principle that applies to all torts.
  • According to Salmond, the law of torts is a sum of various specific torts such as negligence, defamation, nuisance, etc.
  • This perspective emphasizes that the legal system identifies and addresses various wrongful acts individually rather than under a unified theory.

Additional Information

• Winfield's View:
  • Winfield argues that there is a general principle of liability for wrongful acts, known as the law of tort. This means that any wrongful act that causes harm can be actionable under the law of tort, provided it does not fall under any specific exemption.
  • Winfield's perspective contrasts with Salmond's as it supports the idea of a unified theory of tortious liability.
• Austin's View:
  • Austin did not specifically focus on the law of tort or torts in his jurisprudential theories. He is more renowned for his work on the theory of law as commands issued by a sovereign.
  • His views are more aligned with legal positivism rather than specific doctrines of tort law.
• Blackstone's View:
  • Blackstone, in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, provided a comprehensive overview of English law, including torts. However, his work does not specifically address the debate between the law of tort and the law of torts.
  • Blackstone's contributions are more general and foundational to the common law system rather than focused on specific theories of tort law.

The correct answer is 'Winfield'

Key Points

• Explanation of Tortious Liability:
  • Tortious liability arises when there is a breach of a duty that is primarily fixed by the law.
  • This duty is towards persons generally, not to a specific individual.
  • The breach of this duty is redressable by an action for unqualified damages, meaning compensation is sought without any preconditions.
• Winfield's Contribution:
  • Winfield, a renowned legal scholar, provided a comprehensive definition of tortious liability.
  • His work has been foundational in understanding the principles of tort law.

Additional Information

• Other Options:
  • Lord Atkin: Known for his contributions to negligence law, particularly the "neighbour principle" in Donoghue v Stevenson.
  • John Salmond: Known for Salmond's Law of Torts, which provides a different perspective on tortious liability.
  • Fraser: Less prominent in tort law, more known for contributions in other legal areas.

The correct answer is 'direct consequences of his act, if he could foresee some damage to the plaintiff from his act.'

Key Points

• Rule in Re Polemis case:
  • The Re Polemis case established that a defendant is liable for all direct consequences of their negligent act if they could foresee some damage to the plaintiff, even if the extent or type of damage was not foreseeable.
  • This rule emphasizes the foreseeability of some harm, not the specific kind of harm that occurred.
  • The case involved a plank falling into a ship's hold, causing an unforeseeable spark and subsequent fire. The defendant was held liable for all resulting damage.

Additional Information

• Incorrect Options:
  • Option 1: This option omits the necessity of foreseeability of some damage, which is a crucial element in the Re Polemis rule.
  • Option 3: This option incorrectly requires foreseeability of the specific kind of damage, which is not a requirement under the Re Polemis rule.
  • Option 4: This option generalizes the rule to all foreseeable damage, which is more aligned with the later Wagon Mound case, not Re Polemis.

The correct answer is 'Donoghue v Stevenson'

Key Points

• Donoghue v Stevenson:
  • This landmark case established the modern concept of negligence, laying down the foundation for the duty of care principle.
  • The principle of privity of contract, which states that only parties to a contract can sue or be sued on it, was held not applicable in this case.
  • In Donoghue v Stevenson, the court ruled that manufacturers owe a duty of care to the ultimate consumers, even if there is no direct contract between them.
  • This case marked a significant shift in the law, allowing individuals to claim for damages in tort even in the absence of a contractual relationship.

Additional Information

• Winterbottom v Wright:
  • This case reinforced the principle of privity of contract, stating that a third party cannot sue for breach of contract.
  • It did not address the issue of tort liability outside of contractual relationships.
• Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd.:
  • This case dealt with negligence and product liability but came after Donoghue v Stevenson, building upon its principles.
  • It is significant but not the case that initially established the inapplicability of privity in tort actions.
• Ashby v White:
  • This case is related to the right to vote and tort of wrongful acts affecting personal rights, not specifically about privity of contract.
  • It is not relevant to the principle of privity of contract in tort law.

The correct answer is 'a weapon of defence.'

Key Points

• Res Ipsa Loquitur:
  • Res Ipsa Loquitur is a Latin phrase that means "the thing speaks for itself."
  • This legal doctrine is used in tort law when an accident implies negligence because the event would not ordinarily happen without it.
  • The principle shifts the burden of proof to the defendant, who must then show that they were not negligent.
  • It is often used in cases where direct evidence of the defendant's negligence is not available.

Additional Information

• Incorrect Options:
  • Weapon of offence: This is incorrect because Res Ipsa Loquitur is not used to accuse or attack someone but to defend against a claim of negligence.
  • A defence of some factor which was beyond the control of the person who caused injury: While this might seem close, it is not accurate because Res Ipsa Loquitur specifically deals with the presumption of negligence, not factors beyond control.
  • A dangerous weapon: This is incorrect as Res Ipsa Loquitur is a legal doctrine, not a physical object or weapon.