Preparing for the CLAT and AILET PG examinations? Attempt these Multiple Choice Questions on Tort Law and gauge your preparation today!
QUESTIONS
1. Which of the following is NOT an essential element of a tort?
A) Wrongful act or omission
B) Legal damage
C) Criminal intent
D) Legal remedy
B) Legal damage
C) Criminal intent
D) Legal remedy
Answer: C) Criminal intent
Explanation: Tort law primarily deals with civil wrongs rather than criminal offences.
2. In which landmark case was the principle of ‘Strict Liability’ established?
A) Donoghue v. Stevenson
B) Rylands v. Fletcher
C) Ashby v. White
D) Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.
B) Rylands v. Fletcher
C) Ashby v. White
D) Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.
Answer: B) Rylands v. Fletcher
Explanation: The rule of strict liability was established in Rylands v. Fletcher, where a person bringing something dangerous onto their land was held liable if it escaped and caused harm, regardless of negligence.
3. Which of the following is a defense to the tort of negligence?
A) Volenti non fit injuria
B) Res ipsa loquitur
C) Injuria sine damno
D) Malice aforethought
B) Res ipsa loquitur
C) Injuria sine damno
D) Malice aforethought
Answer: A) Volenti non fit injuria
Explanation: Volenti non fit injuria means “to one who volunteers, no harm is done.” If a person willingly consents to a known risk, they cannot later claim damages for injury.
4. A shopkeeper falsely imprisons a customer on suspicion of theft without reasonable cause. Which tort has been committed?
A) Assault
B) Battery
C) False imprisonment
D) Trespass to land
B) Battery
C) False imprisonment
D) Trespass to land
Answer: C) False imprisonment
Explanation: False imprisonment occurs when a person is unlawfully restrained from moving freely without legal justification.
5. The “neighbor principle” in negligence was established in which case?
A) Bourhill v. Young
B) Donoghue v. Stevenson
C) Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.
D) Wagon Mound Case
B) Donoghue v. Stevenson
C) Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.
D) Wagon Mound Case
Answer: B) Donoghue v. Stevenson
Explanation: Donoghue v. Stevenson introduced the “neighbor principle,” which states that one must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions that could foreseeably harm others.
6. Which of the following is an example of vicarious liability?
A) A person injuring another in a car accident
B) A master being held liable for the wrongful act of a servant
C) A person trespassing on another’s land
D) A doctor treating a patient negligently
B) A master being held liable for the wrongful act of a servant
C) A person trespassing on another’s land
D) A doctor treating a patient negligently
Answer: B) A master being held liable for the wrongful act of a servant
Explanation: Vicarious liability arises when an employer is held responsible for the wrongful acts of an employee performed during the course of employment.
7. In tort law, ‘Nuisance’ refers to:
A) Any minor inconvenience
B) A public or private interference with the enjoyment of property
C) A breach of contract
D) A criminal act of defamation
B) A public or private interference with the enjoyment of property
C) A breach of contract
D) A criminal act of defamation
Answer: B) A public or private interference with the enjoyment of property
Explanation: Nuisance in tort law refers to an act that unlawfully interferes with another’s use or enjoyment of land. It can be public (affecting a community) or private (affecting an individual).
8. Which of the following is NOT a type of tort?
A) Negligence
B) Defamation
C) Breach of contract
D) Trespass
B) Defamation
C) Breach of contract
D) Trespass
Answer: C) Breach of contract
Explanation: Breach of contract is a matter of contract law, not tort law, which primarily deals with civil wrongs such as negligence, defamation, and trespass.
9. The principle of ‘Res Ipsa Loquitur’ means:
A) Let the buyer beware
B) The thing speaks for itself
C) Ignorance of law is no excuse
D) Let the master answer
B) The thing speaks for itself
C) Ignorance of law is no excuse
D) Let the master answer
Answer: B) The thing speaks for itself
Explanation: Res Ipsa Loquitur applies when an accident occurs under circumstances that strongly indicate negligence, even without direct evidence.
10. Which of the following statements about defamation is TRUE?
A) Truth is always a complete defense to defamation
B) Only written statements can be defamatory
C) Defamation is only a criminal offense, not a tort
D) Public figures cannot sue for defamation
B) Only written statements can be defamatory
C) Defamation is only a criminal offense, not a tort
D) Public figures cannot sue for defamation
Answer: A) Truth is always a complete defense to defamation
Explanation: If a statement is true, it cannot be defamatory, as defamation requires the statement to be false and injurious to reputation.
For More Questions on Tort Law, click here!
Subscribe for updates
Join 10,000+ subscribers.
RU
Ruchika Mohapatra
Contributing author
Have a doubt about this?Ask Doubts
