These 50-odd previous years’ questions comprise of the Torts-based questions from all the CLAT exams so far (except 2016), with their ANSWERS AND DETAILED EXPLANATIONS.

We’ve filtered these out from the questions that have been repeated multiple times to make each question unique.
So, this is it – all the Torts questions ever asked in CLAT!

past years

[We’ll update this with the CLAT 2016 Torts questions (with answers and explanations, too), shortly.] 1. The Railway authorities allowed a train to be over-crowded. In consequence, a legitimate passenger, Mr. X got his pocket picked. Choose appropriate answer-

(a) Mr. X can sue the railway authorities for the loss suffered.
(b) Mr. X cannot sue because he had given his consent to travel in over-crowded train.
(c) Mr. X cannot sue the railway authorities because there was no infringement of legal right and mere fact that the loss was caused does not give to a cause of action.
(d) None of the above.

 

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

FACTS: Sanjay is a driver working in Brooke bond and co. one day, the Manager asked him to drop a customer at the airport and get back at the earliest. On his way back from the airport, he happened to see his fiancé Ruhina waiting for a bus to go home. He offered to drop her at home, which happened to be close to his office. She got into the car and soon thereafter; the car somersaulted due to the negligence to Sanjay. Ruhina was thrown out of the car suffered multiple injuries. She seeks compensation from Brooke bond and Co.

(a) Brooke bond and Co. shall be liable, because Sanjay was in the course of employment at the time of accident.
(b) Brooke bond and Co. Shall not be liable, Sanjay was not in the course of employment when he took Ruhina inside the car.
(c) Ruhina got into the car at her own risk, and therefore, she cannot sue anybody.
(d) None of the above

 

3. PRINCIPLE: Nuisance as a tort (Civil wrong) means an unlawful interference with a person’s use of enjoyment of land, or some right over, or in connection with it.

FACTS: During the scarcity of onions, long queues were made outside the defendant’s shop, who, having a license to sell fruits and vegetables, used to sell only 1 kg of onion per ration card. The queues extended on the highway and also caused some obstruction to the neighbouring shops. The neighbouring shopkeepers brought and action for nuisance against the defendant.

(a) The defendant is liable for nuisance
(b) The defendant was not liable for nuisance
(c) The defendant was liable under the principle of strict liability
(d) The plaintiff’s should be decreed in his favour

 

4. PRINCIPLE: Everybody is under a legal obligation to take reasonable care to avoid and act or omission which he can take reasonable care to avoid and act or omission which he can foresee would injure his neighbour. The neighbour, for this purpose, is any person whom he should have in his mind as likely to be affected by his act.

FACTS: Krishnan, while driving a car at high speed in a crowded road, knocked down a cyclist. The cyclist died on the spot with a lot of blood spilling around, Lakshmi, a pregnant woman passing by, suffered from a nervous shock, leading to abortion. Lakshmi filed a suit against Krishnan claiming damages.

(a) Krishnan will be liable, because he owed a duty of reasonable care to everbody on the road including Lakshmi.
(b) Krishnan will not be liable, because he could not have foreseen Lakshmi suffering from nervous shock as a result of his act.
(c) Krishnan will be liable to Lakshmi because he failed to drive carefully.
(d) None of the above.

 

5. PRINCIPLE: “Nobody shall unlawfully interfere with a person’s use or enjoyment of land, or some right over, or in connection with it. The use or enjoyment, envisaged herein, should be normal and reasonable taking into account surrounding situation.”

FACTS: Jeevan and Pavan were neighbours in residential locality. Pavan started a typing class in a part of his house and his typing sound disturbed Jeevan, who could not put up with and kind of continuous noise. He filed a suit against Pavan.

(a) Pavan is liable, because he should not have started typing class in his house
(b) Pavan is liable, because as his neighbour, he should have realized Jeevan’s delicate nature.
(c) Pavan is not liable, because typing sound did not disturb anyone else other than Jeevan.
(d) Pavan is not liable, because typing sound did not disturb anyone else other than Jeevan.

 

6. PRINCIPLE: Any direct physical interference with the goods in somebody’s possession without lawful justification is called trespass to goods.

FACTS: A purchased a car from a person who had no little to it and had send it to a garage for repair. X, believing, wrongly, that the car was his, removed it from the garage.

(a) X can be held responsible for trespass to goods.
(b) X cannot be held responsible for trespass to good as he was under a wrong belief.
(c) X has not committed any wrong.
(d) None of the above.

 

7. PRINCIPLE: Vicarious liability is the liability of the Master or Principal for the tort committed by his servant or agent, provided the tort is committed in the course of employment. The Master or Principal is not liable for private wrongs of the servant /agent.

FACTS: X hands over some cash money at his house to Y, who is X’s neighbour and is also cashier in a bank, to be deposited in A’s account in the bank. Instead of depositing the money, Y misappropriates it.
Which of the following statements depict correct legal position in this given legal situation?

(a) The bank would not be liable because Y did not do any wrong in the course of his employment.
(b) The bank would be vicariously liable because Y was the employee of the bank.
(c) The bank would not be liable because Y did not do any wrong.
(d) The bank would be liable because Y acted as bank’s agent.

 

8. PRINCIPLE: A person has no legal remedy for an injury caused by an act to which he has consented.

FACTS: R, a cricket enthusiast, purchases a ticket to watch a T20 match organised by the Indian Premier League (IPL). During the match, a ball struck for six hits R on his body and injures him. He sues IPL for compensation for the medical expenses.

Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?
(a) R should be compensated as he purchased the ticket to get entertainment and not get injured.
(b) R would fail in his action, as he voluntarily exposed himself to the risk.
(c) IPL would be liable as it did not ensure that the spectators were protected from the risk of such injuries.
(d) None of the above.

 

9. PRINCIPLE: Damage without the violation of a legal right is not actionable in a court of law. If the interference with the rights of another person is not unlawful or unauthorised, but a necessary consequence of the exercise of defendant’s own lawful rights, no action should lie.

FACTS: There was an established school (ES) in a particular locality. Subsequently, a new school (NS) was set up in the same locality which charged lower fees, on account of which people started patronising the new school. Because of the competition, ES had to reduce its fees. ES filed a case against NS saying that NS had caused it financial loss and, thus, claimed compensation.

Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

(a) Since no legal right of ES has been violated, therefore, as such, no compensation could be granted.
(b) Since damage is caused to ES, therefore, it should be awarded compensation.
(c) ES should be awarded compensation as opening of school in competition is not good.
(d) No compensation could be granted, as reduction in fees is good for the public.

 

10. PRINCIPLE: Whenever there is an invasion of a legal right, the person in whom the right is vested, is entitled to bring an action though he has suffered no actual loss or harm, and may recover damages (compensation).

FACTS: ‘A’ was a qualified voter for the Lok Sabha election. However, a returning officer wrongfully refused to take A’s vote. In spite of such wrongful refusal, the candidate, for whom ‘A’ wanted to vote, won the election. But, ‘A’ brought an action for damages.

Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

(a) Since no legal right of ‘A’ had been violated, therefore, as such, no compensation could be granted
(b) Since legal right of ‘A’ had been violated, therefore, compensation should be granted
(c) No compensation could be granted, as ‘A’ had suffered no loss as his candidate won the election
(d) Since no fundamental right of ‘A’ had been violated, therefore, as such, no compensation could be granted

 

11. PRINCIPLE: In a civil action for defamation, truth of the defamatory matter is an absolute defence. However, the burden of proving truth is on the defendant; and he is liable if he does not successfully discharge this burden.

FACTS: D, who was the editor of a local weekly, published a series of articles mentioning that P, who was a government servant, issued false certificates, accepted bribe, adopted corrupt and illegal means to mint money and was a “mischief monger”. P brought a civil action against D, who could not prove the facts published by him.

Under the circumstances, which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

(a) D would be liable, since he could not prove the facts published by him.
(b) D would not be liable as such an action could curtail the right of expression and speech of press.
(c) D would not be liable as media could publish anything.
(d) None of the above.

 

12. PRINCIPLE: A gift comprising both existing and future property is void as to the latter.

FACTS: X has a house which is owned by him. He contracted to purchase a plot of land adjacent to the said house but the sale (of the plot of land) in his favour is yet to be completed. He makes a gift of both the properties (house and land) to Y.

Under the afore-mentioned circumstances, which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

(a) Gift of both the properties is valid.
(b) Gift of both the properties is void.
(c) Gift of house is void, but the gift of the plot of land is valid.
(d) Gift of house is valid, but the gift of the plot of land is void.

 

13. PRINCIPLE: Caveat emptor, “let the buyer beware”, stands for the practical skill and judgment of the buyer in his choice of goods for purchase. It is the business of the buyer to judge for himself that what he buys has its use and worth for him. Once bought and if the buy is not up to his expectations then he alone is to blame and no one else.

FACTS: For the purpose of making uniform for the employees, “A” bought dark blue coloured cloth from B but did not disclose to the seller the specific purpose of the said purchase. When uniforms were prepared and used by the employees the cloth was found unfit. However, the cloth was fit for a variety of other purposes (such as, making caps. boots and carriage lining. etc). Applying the afore-stated principle which of the following derivations is CORRECT as regards remedy available to A in the given situation?

(a) A (the buyer) would succeed in getting some remedy from B (the seller)
(b) A (the buyer) would not succeed in getting any remedy from B (the seller).
(c) A (the buyer) would succeed in getting refund from B (the seller)
(d) A (the buyer) would succeed in getting a different variety of cloth from B (the seller) but not the refund.

 

14. PRINCIPLE: The transferor of goods cannot pass a better title than what he himself possesses.

FACTS: X sells a stolen bike to Y. Y buys it in good faith.
As regards the title to bike which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

(a) The real owner cannot get back the bike from Y.
(b) Y will get no title. as transferor’s (X‟s) title was defective.
(c) Y will get good title as he is a bona fide buyer.
(d) Y will get good title, as has not committed any wrong (stolen the bike)

 

15. PRINCIPLE: Negligence is a breach of duty or a failure of one party to exercise the standard of care required by law, resulting in damage to the party to whom the duty was owed. A plaintiff can take civil action against the respondent, if the respondent’s negligence causes the plaintiff injury or loss of property.

FACTS: D went to a café and ordered and paid for a tin/can of soft drink. The tin was opaque, and, therefore, the contents could not be seen from outside. She consumed some of the contents and then lifted the tin to pour the remainder of the content into a tumbler. The remains of a snail in decomposed state dropped out of the tin into the tumbler. D later complained of a stomach pain and her doctor diagnosed her as having gastroenteritis and being in a state of severe shock. She sued the manufacturer of the drink for negligence.
Applying the afore-stated principle which of the following derivations is CORRECT as regards liability of the manufacturer in the given situation?

(a) The manufacturer is liable for negligence, as it owed at duty (to consumers) to take reasonable care to ensure that its products are safe for consumption
(b) The manufacturer is not liable for negligence as there is no direct contract between D and the manufacturer. No duty is owed by the manufacturer towards a particular consumer.
(c) The manufacturer is not liable for negligence because it would otherwise become very difficult for the manufacturers to do business.
(d) The manufacturer could be made liable under criminal law, but not for tort of negligence.

 

16. PRINCIPLE: Master is liable for the wrongful acts committed by his servant; provided the acts are committed during the course of employment. However, the master is not liable if the wrongful act committed by his servant has no connection whatsoever with the servants contract of employment.

FACTS: D is a driver employed by M, who is the owner of a company. During the lunch time, D goes to a close by tea shop to have a cup of tea. There he picks up fight with the tea shop owner (T), which resulted in some damage to his shop. T wants to sue M for claiming compensation for the damage caused by the fight. Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

(a) M will be liable because D is his servant
(b) Both M and D will be liable.
(c) M will not be liable because the wrongful act (picking up fight) was not committed in the course of D’s employment.
(d) M will be liable albeit the wrongful act (picking up fight) was not committed in the course of his employment.

 

17. PRINCIPLE: Trespass to land means direct interference with the possession of land without lawful justification. Trespass could be committed either by a person himself entering the land of another person or doing the same through some tangible object(s).

FACTS: A throws some stones upon his neighbour’s (B’s) premises.
Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?

(a) A has committed trespass.
(b) A has not committed trespass, as he has not entered B’s premises.
(c) A has committed nuisance.
(d) None of the above.

 

18. PRINCIPLE: Nuisance is an unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land or some right over or in connection with it. If the interference is direct, the wrong is trespass; whereas, if the interference is consequential, it amounts to nuisance.

FACTS: A plants a tree on his land. However, he allows its branches to project over the land of B.
Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?
(a) A has committed trespass.
(b) A has committed nuisance.
(c) A has not committed nuisance.
(d) None of the above A.

 

19. PRINCIPLE: Interference with another’s goods in such a way as to deny the latter’s title to the goods amounts to conversion, and thus it is a civil wrong. It is an act intentionally done inconsistent with the owner’s right, though the doer may not know of, or intend to challenge the property or possession of the true owner.

FACTS: R went to a cycle-stand to park his bicycle. Seeing the stand fully occupied, he removed a few bicycles in order to rearrange a portion of the stand and make some space for his bicycle. He parked his bicycle properly, and put back all the bicycles except the one belonging to S. In fact, R was in a hurry, and therefore, he could not put back S’s bicycle. Somebody came on the way and took away S’s bicycle. The watchman of the stand did not take care of it assuming that the bicycle was not parked inside the stand. S filed a suit against R for conversion.

Which of the following derivations is CORRECT?
(a) R could not be held liable for the negligence of the watchman.
(b) S would succeed because R’s act led to the stealing of his bicycle.
(c) S would not succeed because R did not take away the bicycle himself.
(d) S would not succeed because R’s intention was not bad.

 

20. PRINCIPLE: Whosoever by his act or omission causes environmental pollution shall be held liable for any loss caused by such pollution. It shall be no defence in such cases that all due diligence or reasonable care was taken while carrying out the act or omission in question.

FACTS: Hari is carrying on a chemical and fertilizer industry near a bank of a river. In order to prevent and control any kind of harm to the environment, suitable waste treatment and disposal plants were installed in the factory. Due to some sudden mechanical/ technical problem, these plants ceased to work properly and therefore, caused environmental pollution, which ultimately caused substantial harm to the environment and to the people living around the factory. Victims of such pollution file a suit for suitable remedy.

(a) Victims cannot succeed as necessary precautions to prevent any harm were taken by Hari
(b) Victims cannot succeed as the mechanical/technical problem was sudden and therefore, beyond the control of Hari
(c) Victims can succeed as it is the duty of Hari to see that no harm is caused to the environment/people due to his activity under any circumstances
(d) Victims could succeed, if treatment/disposal plant were not installed in the factory

 

21. PRINCIPLE: Qui facit per alium facit per se, i.e., he who does things through others does it himself.

FACTS: Nisha, the owner of a car, asked her friend Saurabh to take her car and drive the same to her office. As the car was near her office, it hit a pedestrian Srikant on account of Saurabh’s negligent driving and injured him seriously. Now, Srikant files a suit for damages against Nisha.

(a) Nisha is not liable as it was the negligence of Saurabh
(b) Saurabh is solely liable as Nisha was not driving the car
(c) Nisha is liable as Saurabh was driving under her authority and for her purpose.
(d) Saurabh will be exempted from liability under the principle of inevitable accident

 

22. PRINCIPLE: Res ipsa loquitur, i.e., the thing speaks for itself.

FACTS: Seema got herself operated for the removal of her uterus in the defendant’s hospital, as there was diagnosed to be a cyst in one of her ovaries. Due the negligence of the surgeon, who performed the operation, abdominal pack was left in her abdomen. The same was removed by a second surgery.

(a) Surgeon cannot be held responsible because it is merely a human error
(b) Surgeon can be held responsible but Seema will have to prove in the court of law that the surgeon was grossly negligent
(c) Surgeon will be responsible and Seema need not to prove surgeon’s negligence because presence of abdominal pack in her abdomen is sufficient proof therefore
(d) None of the above

 

23. PRINCIPLE: When an act, which would otherwise be an offence, is not that offence by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, every person has the same right of private defence against that act, which he would have if the act were that offence. Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.

FACTS: A, under the influence of madness, attempts to kill B. B in order to save his life cause grievous hurt to A.

(a) A has committed an offence
(b) A has not committed an offence
(c) B has committed an offence
(d) B has not committed any offence

 

24. 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 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: In a community there is a custom of stealing shoes of bridegroom during the marriage ceremony. The shoes of the bridegroom were stolen by Y, A announced that Z has stolen the shoes. Everyone present in the marriage party started staring at Z with great surprise. Z felt very ashamed.

(a) A defamed Z
(b) A did not defame Z
(c) A defamed Z for Z felt very ashamed
(d) A defamed the whole marriage party

 

25. PRINCIPLE: An employer is liable for the negligence of his employee. But an employer is not liable for the negligence of his employee, if the victim of such negligence is one of his other employees.

FACTS: A and B were working in factory as unskilled labourers. A was carrying a basket of stones on his head. B was sitting on the ground. When A crossed B, all of a sudden a stone fell down from the basket and hit B on his head. B died immediately.

(a) The owner of the factory will be liable.
(b) A and the owner of the factory shall be jointly liable.
(c) The owner of the factory will not be liable.
(d) None of the above.

 

26. PRINCIPLE: Damages are the money recompense, as far as money can do, for the violation of a right.

FACTS: A, an Indian citizen, having a right to vote, was not allowed to cast his vote on the polling booth, by the returning officer. Name of A was mentioned in the voter’s list. A has also reported at the polling booth in time. However, the candidate in whose favour A would have cast his vote won the election. A filed a suit claiming damages.

(a) A will be entitled to damages
(b) A will not be entitled to damages
(c) A will be entitled to only nominal damages
(d) A will be entitled to exemplary damages

 

27. PRINCIPLE: When a person voluntarily agrees to suffer some harm, he is not allowed to complain for that.

FACTS: A was one of the spectators at a formula one car race, being held at Gurgaon, on a track owned by one M company. During the race, there was a collision between two racing cars, one of which was thrown away amidst spectators, thereby causing an injury to A. A claims damages for the injuries caused to him.

(a) M company will be liable for damages because the injury was caused during the race organized by it
(b) M company will not be liable for damages because A had come to see the race on his own will
(c) M company will not be liable for damages because the collision between the cars was beyond its control
(d) M company will be liable because it has earned huge revenue by way of sale of tickets for the event

 

28. PRINCIPLE: An interest which is created on a transfer of property and depends upon the fulfilment of a condition will fail if the fulfilment of the condition is impossible or is forbidden by law or is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law or is fraudulent or involves or implies injury to the person or property of another or the court regards it as immoral or opposed to public policy.

FACTS: A gives Rs. 10 Lakh to B on condition that B shall marry A’s daughter C. On the date on which A gave Rs. 10 Lakh to B, C was dead.

(a) B’s interest in Rs. 10 Lakh fails because of impossibility
(b) B’s interest in Rs. 10 Lakh fails because of immorality
(c) B’s interest in Rs. 10 Lakh fails because of prohibition by law
(d) B’s interest in Rs. 10 Lakh does not fail

 

29. PRINCIPLE: Nothing is an offence merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm, if it be done without any criminal intention to cause harm and in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to a person or property.

FACTS: Mr. Sharman, the Italian captain of a steam vessel, suddenly and without any fault or negligence on his part, finds himself near the Kochi coast in such a position that before he can stop his vessel, he must inevitably run down a boat B with twenty or thirty passengers on board, unless he changes the course of his vessel, and that by changing his course, he must incur risk of running down a boat C with only two passengers on board, which he may possibly clear. Whether Sharman has committed an offence?

(a) Sharman has committed no offence because this was done out of necessity
(b) Sharman can be held responsible for the act of criminal negligence
(c) Sharman can be held responsible for culpable homicide
(d) This is a clear case of accident so Sharman cannot be held responsible

 

30. PRINCIPLE: Ignorance of Fact is excused but ignorance of law is no excuse

FACTS: X was a passenger from Zurich to Manila in a Swiss Plane. When the plane landed at the Airport of Bombay on 28 Nov. 1962 it was found on searching that X carried 34 kg of Gold Bars on his person and that he had not declared it in the ‘Manifest for Transit’. On 26th Nov. 1962 the Government of India had issued a notification modifying its earlier exemption, making it mandatory now that the gold must be declared in the “Manifest” of the aircraft.

(A) X cannot be prosecuted because he had actually no knowledge about the new notification issued two days ago
(B) X cannot be prosecuted because ignorance of fact is excusable
(C) X can be prosecuted because ignorance of law is not excusable
(D) X’s liability would depend on the discretion of the court

 

31. Ramu applied for the post of Director in an organization. The governing body of the organization passed a resolution appointing him to the post. After the meeting, one of the members of the governing body informed him privately of the resolution. Subsequently, the resolution was rescinded. Ramu claims damages. Which one of the following is the correct legal proposition in the case?

(A) Ramu cannot claim damages as he had not resigned from his existing post in anticipation of getting the appointment letter
(B) Ramu cannot claim damages as there was no formal communication
(C) Ramu can claim damages as governing body cannot rescind the resolution once passed
(D) Ramu can claim damages as there was private communication

 

32. Ms. Usha wants to file a suit against Bhagyalaxmi Theatre praying for a permanent injunction (stay order) restraining the theatre from running the film named “Jai Santoshi Maa”. Her contention is that the film hurt her religious feelings and sentiments as Goddess Saraswati, Laxmi and Parvati were depicted as jealous and were ridiculed.

(A) She cannot file a suit because injury to religious feelings is not a legally recognized right.
(B) She cannot file a suit because the Theatre has a fundamental right to speech and expression.
(C) She can file a suit as injury to religious feelings has been legally recognized as a right (injuria sine damnum).
(D) It is a case of complete judicial discretion.

 

PRINCIPLE: A. A person is an employee of another if the mode and the manner in which he or she carries out his work is subject to control and supervision of the latter.

B. An employer is required to provide compensation to his or her employees for any injury caused by an accident arising in the course of employment. The words ‘in the course of the employment’ mean in the course of the work which the employee is contracted to do and which is incidental to it.

FACTS: Messrs. Zafar Abidi and Co. (Company) manufactures bidis with the help of persons known as ‘pattadars’. The pattadars are supplied tobacco and leaves by the Company and are required to roll them into bidis and bring the bidis back to the Company. The pattadars are free to roll the bidis either in the factory or anywhere else they prefer. They are not bound to attend the factory for any fixed number of bidis. The Company verifies whether the bidis adhere to the specified instructions or not the pays the pattadars on the basis of the number of bidis that are found to be of right quality. Aashish Mathew is one of the pattadars of the Company. He was hit by a car just outside the precinct of the factory while he was heading to have lunch in a nearby food-stall. Aashish. Mathew has applied for compensation from the Company.

 

33. Which of the following statements can most plausibly be inferred from the application of the rules to the given facts:

(a) Aashish Mathew is an employee of the Company because the latter exercises control over the manner in which Aashish Mathew carries out his work.
(b) Aashish Mathew is not an employee but an independent contractor as he does not have a fixed salary.
(c) Aashish Mathew is an employee because the Company exercises control over the final quality of the bidis.
(d) Verification of the quality of bidis amounts to control over the product and not control over the mode and method of work and therefore, Aashish Mathew is not an employee of the Company.

34. In case the pattadars were compulsorily required to work in the factory for a minimum number of hours every day, then it would be correct to state that:

(a) The injury was not caused by an accident in the course of employment
(b) Aashish Mathew would not be an employee as the Company would have still not exercised control over the manner of work
(c) The injury suffered by Aashish Mathew could not be held to be one caused by an accident.
(d) Stipulations on place and hours of work relate to manner and mode of work and therefore, Aashish Mathew would be held to be an employee of the Company.

35. According to the facts and the rules specified, which of the following propositions is correct:

(a) The Company is not liable to pay compensation as the injury to Aashish Mathew was not caused by an accident arising in the course of employment.
(b) The Company is liable to pay the compensation.
(c) Since the injury did not arise in the course of employment, the Company would not be liable to pay the compensation even though Aashish Mathew is an employee of the company.
(d) The Company is liable to pay the compensation as Aashish Mathew is a contracted pattadar with the company.

36. Select the statement that could be said to be most direct inference from specified facts:

(a) The injury to Aashish Mathew did not arise in the course of employment as he was not rolling bidis at the time when he was hit by the car.
(b) Since the Ashish Mathew is a contracted pattadar with the Company, it shall be presumed that the injury was caused by an accident in the course of employment.
(c) Since there was no relationship of employment between Aashish Mathew and the Company, the injury suffered by Aashish Mathew could not be held to be one arising in the course of employment notwithstanding the fact that the concerned injury was caused while he was involved in an activity incidental to his duties.
(d) As the concerned injury was caused to Aashish Mathew while he was involved in an activity incidental to his duties, the injury did arise in the course of employment.

37. If the pattadars were compulsory required to work in the factory for a minimum number of hours every day, then the Company would have been liable to pay compensation to Aashish Mathew if the latter:

(a) Had been assaulted and grievously hurt by his neighbour inside the factory precincts over a property dispute.
(b) Had slipped and fractured his arm while trying to commute on a city bus from his home to the factory.
(c) Had been injured while commuting on a bus provided by the Company and which he was required by his contract to use every day.
(d) Had been caught in the middle of a cross-fire between police and a gang of robbers while travelling to work on a city bus.

 

PRINCIPLE: Rule A: An owner of land has the right to use the land in any manner he or she desires. The owner of land also owns the space above and the depths below it.

Rule B: Rights above the land extend only to the point they are essential to any use or enjoyment of land.

Rule C: An owner cannot claim infringement of her property right if the space above his or her land is put to reasonable use by someone else at a height at which the owner would have no reasonable use of it and it does not affect the reasonable employment of his or her land.

Ramesh’s case: Ramesh owns an acre of land on the outskirts of Sullurpeta, Andhra Pradesh. The Government of India launches its satellites into space frequently from Sriharikota, near Sullurpeta. The Government of India does not deny that once the satellite launch has travelled the distance of almost 7000 kilometres it passes over Ramesh’s property. Ramesh files a case claiming that the Government of India has violated his property rights by routing its satellite over his property, albeit 7000 kilometers directly above it.

38. Applying only Rule A to Ramesh’s case, as a judge you would decide:

(a) In favour of the Government of India because the transgression was at a height at which Ramesh could not possibly have any use for.
(b) That ownership of land does not mean that the owner’s right extends infinitely into space above the land.
(c) In favour of Ramesh because he has the right to infinite space above the land he owns.
(d) In favour of the Government of India because it would lead to the absurd result that Ramesh and most other property owners would have a claim against airline companies and other countries of the world whose satellites orbit the earth.

Shazia’s case: Shazia owns a single storeyed house in Ahmedabad which has been in her family for more than 75 years. The foundation of the house cannot support another floor and Shazia has no intention of demolishing her family home to construct a bigger building. Javed and Sandeep are business partners and own three storey houses on either side of Shazia’s house. Javed and Sandeep are also Ahmedabad’s main distributors for a major soft drinks company. They have erected a huge hoarding advertising their products, with the ends supported on their roofs but the hoarding also passes over Shazia’s house at 70 feet and casts a permanent shadow on her terrace. Shazia decides to hoist a huge Indian flag, going up to 75 feet, on her roof. She files a case, asking the court to order Javed and Sandeep to remove the hoarding for all these reasons.

39. Applying only Rule B to Shazia’s case, you would decide in favour of:

(a) Javed and Sandeep because Shazia can easily hoist a flag below 70 feet.
(b) Shazia because she has the right to put her land to any use and the court cannot go into her intentions for hoisting a flag at 75 feet.
(c) Shazia because she has the absolute right to the space above her land.
(d) Javed and Sandeep because hoisting a flag 75 feet above one’s roof is not essential to the use and enjoyment of the land.

40. Applying only Rules A and B to Shazia’s case, you would decide:

(a) In favour of Shazia only under Rule A.
(b) In favour of Shazia under Rule A as well as B.
(c) Against Shazia under Rule B.
(d) Against Shazia under Rule A as well as B.

41. Applying only Rule B and C to Ramesh’s case, you would decide:

(a) In favour of Ramesh only under Rule B.
(b) In favour of Ramesh under Rule B as well as C.
(c) Against Ramesh under Rule C.
(d) Against Ramesh under Rule B as well as C.

42. Applying Rule C to Shazia’s case, you would decide:

(a) In her favour because hoisting a 75 feet high flag is reasonable.
(b) Against her because a 75 feet high flag is not reasonable.
(c) Against her because the hoarding is a reasonable use of the space above her land.
(d) In her favour because the permanent shadow cast by the hoarding affects the reasonable enjoyment of her land.

43. PRINCIPLES: 1) Consumable goods which are not fit for consumption are not marketable.
2) A consumer shall not suffer on account of unmarketable goods.
3) A seller is liable for knowingly selling unmarketable goods.
4) A manufacturer shall be liable for the quality of his products.

FACTS: Ram bought a Coca Cola bottle from Shama’s shop. Back at home, the server opened the bottle and poured the drink into the glasses of Ram and his friend Tom. As Tom started drinking, he felt irritation in his throat. Immediately, Ram and Tom took the sample to test and found nitric acid in the content. Ram filed a suit against Shama, Coca Cola company and the bottler, Kishen and Co.

SUGGESTED DECISIONS:

(a) Ram cannot get compensation
(b) Tom can get compensation
(c) Both Ram and Tom can get compensation

SUGGESTED REASONS:

i) Shama did not know the contents of sealed bottle.
ii) Ram did not actually suffer though he bought the bottle.
iii) Tom did not buy the bottle.
iv) Coca Cola company is responsible since it supplied the concentrate.
v) Kishen & Co, is responsible since it added water, sugar, etc., and sealed the bottle.
vi) Shama is responsible for selling the defective product.

Your decision with the reason:
(a) (a) (ii)     (b) (b) (vi)     (c) (c) (v)     (d) (c) (iv)

 

44. PRINCIPLES: 1. If A is asked to do something by B, B is responsible for the act, not A.
2. If A, while acting for B commits a wrong, A is responsible for the wrong, not B.
3. If A is authorised to do something for B, but in the name of A without disclosing B’s presence, both A and B may be held liable.

FACTS: Somu contracted with Amar whereunder Amar would buy a pumpset to be used in Somu’s farm. Such a pumpset was in short supply in the market. Gulab, a dealer, had such a pumpset and he refused to sell it to Amar. Amar threatened Gulab of serious consequences if he fails to part with the pumpset. Gulab filed a complaint against Amar.

PROPOSED DECISION:

(a) Amar alone is liable for the wrong though he acted for Somu.
(b) Amar is not liable for the wrong, though he is bound by the contract with Somu.
(c) Somu is bound by the contract and liable for the wrong.
(d) Both Somu and Amar are liable for the wrong.

SUGGESTED REASONS:

i) Amar committed the wrong while acting for the benefit of Somu.
ii) Amar cannot do while acting for Somu something which he cannot do while acting for himself.
iii) Both Amar and Somu are liable since they are bound by the contract.
iv) Somu has to be responsible for the act of Amar committed for Somu’s benefit.

Your decision with the reason:
(a) (a) (i)     (b) (a) (ii)     (c) (d)    (d) (iv)

 

45. PRINCIPLES: 1. An employer shall be liable for the wrongs committed by his employees in the course of employment.
2. Third parties must exercise reasonable care to find out whether a person is actually acting in the course of employment.

FACTS: Nandan was appointed by Syndicate Bank to collect small savings from its customers spread over in different places on daily basis. Nagamma, a housemaid, was one of such ‘customers making use of Nandan’s service.
Syndicate Bank after a couple of years terminated Nandan’s service. Nagamma, unaware of this fact, was handing over her savings to Nandan who misappropriated them. Nagamma realised this nearly after three months, when she went to the Bank to withdraw money. She filed a complaint against the Bank.

POSSIBLE DECISION:

(a) Syndicate Bank shall be liable to compensate Nagamma.
(b) Syndicate Bank shall not be liable to compensate Nagamma.
(c) Nagamma has to blame herself for her negligence.

POSSIBLE REASONS:

i) Nandan was not acting in the course of employment after the termination of his service.
ii) A person cannot blame others for his own negligence.
iii) Nagamma was entitled to be informed by the Bank about Nandan.
iv) The Bank is entitled to expect its customers to know actual position.

Your decision with the reason:
(a) (b) (i)     (b) (c) (ii)     (c) (a) (iii)     (d) (b) (iv)

 

46. PRINCIPLES: 1. A master shall be liable for the fraudulent acts of his servants committed in the course of employment.
2. Whether an act is committed in the course of employment has to be judged in the context of the case.
3. Both master and third parties must exercise reasonable care in this regard.

FACTS: Rama Bhai was an uneducated widow and she opened an S.B. account with Syndicate Bank with the help of her nephew by name Keshav who was at that time working as a clerk in the Bank. Keshav used to deposit the money of Rama Bhai from time to time and get the entries done in the passbook. After a year or so, Keshav was dismissed from the service by the Bank. Being unaware of this fact, Rama Bhai continued to hand over her savings to him and Keshav misappropriated them. Rama Bhai realised this only when Keshav disappeared from the scene one day, and she sought compensation from the Bank.

POSSIBLE DECISIONS:

a) Syndicate Bank shall be liable to compensate Rama Bhai.
b) Syndicate Bank shall not be liable to compensate Rama Bhai.
C) Rama Bhai cannot blame others for her negligence.

POSSIBLE REASONS:

i) Keshav was not an employee of the Bank when the fraud was committed.
ii) The Bank was not aware of the special arrangement between Rama Bhai and Keshav
iii) It is the Bank’s duty to take care of vulnerable customers.
iv) Rama Bhai should have checked about Keshav in her own interest.

Your decision with the reason:
(a) (a) (iii)     (b) (c) (iv)     (c) (b) (ii)     (d) (b) (i)

 

47. PRINCIPLES: 1. A person is liable for negligence, if he fails to take care of his neighbour’s interest.
2. A neighbour is anyone whose interests should have been foreseeable by a reasonable man while carrying on his activities.

FACTS: A cricket match was going on in a closed door stadium. A cricket fan who could not get into the stadium was watching the game by climbing up a nearby tree and sitting there. The cricket ball in the course of the game went out of the stadium and hit this person and injured him. He filed a suit against the organizers.

POSSIBLE DECISIONS:

(a) The organizers are liable to compensate the injured person.
(b) The organizers are not liable to compensate the injured person.
(c) The injured person should have avoided the place where he might be hit by the cricket ball.

POSSIBLE REASONS:

i) The organizers are responsible for the people inside the stadium.
ii) The organizers could not have foreseen somebody watching the game by climbing up a tree.
iii) A person crazy about something must pay the price for that.
iv) The organizers shall be liable to everybody likely to watch the game.
Your decision with the reason:
(a) (a) (iv)     (b) (a) (iii)     (c) (b) (ii)     (d) (c) (i)

 

48. PRINCIPLES: 1. When a person unlawfully interferes in the chattel of another person by which the latter is deprived of its use, the former commits the tort of conversion.

2. Nobody shall enrich himself at other’s expense.

FACTS: A patient suffering from stomach ailment approached a teaching hospital. He was diagnosed as suffering from appendicitis and his appendix was removed. He became alright. The hospital however found some unique cells in the appendix, and using the cell lines thereof, it developed drugs of enormous commercial value. When the erstwhile patient came to know about it, he claimed a share in the profit made by the hospital.

POSSIBLE DECISIONS:

a) The hospital need not share its profits with the patient.
b) The hospital may share its profits on ex gratis basis.
C) The hospital shall share its profits with the patient.

POSSIBLE REASONS:

i) The patient, far from being deprived of the use of his appendix, actually benefitted by its removal.
ii) The hospital instead of throwing away the appendix conducted further research on it on its own and the development of drug was the result of its own effort.
iii) The hospital could not have achieved its success without that appendix belonging to the patient.
iv) Everybody must care for and share with others.

Your decision with the reason:
(a) (a) (i)     (b) (a) (ii)     (c) (c) (iii)     (d) (c) (iv)

Answers:
1. C (The legal right that exists is simply to be protected from injuries occurring out of travelling on the train, either directly or indirectly. Having your pocket picked is not such an injury. The Railways can in no way spot a potential pickpocket. You’ll also see a warning on the walls of public transport like trains and buses warning you against pickpockets, for this very reason.)

2. A (Let’s term the Airport as ‘A’, and the Brooke Bond office as ‘B’. Consider that the route between A & B is in a straight line: A < > B. Sanjay has been authorized to go from B to A, perform the task, and then get back to B. His course of employment subsists on the route from A to B. For everything that happens on the way, which is either directly or incidentally connected to his course of employement, he will be liable. Here, Sanjay picks up Ruhina on the route itself, and was travelling on the route when the accident occurred. NOTE: course, here, does not mean ‘route’. It means acts done during work hours, or while doing work which one is employed or authorized to do.)

3. A (The defendant did not create the nuisance himself, or do anything to cause it. He was a licensed seller, who was plying his trade as he would on any other day – he was not selling in other-than-ordinary quantities – “only 1 kg per ration card”. That there was a scarcity is circumstantial, and should not make his normal trading activity a nuisance.)

4. B (As given in the answer itself, Krishnan could not have foreseen that there was a pregnant woman there, who would have suffered a nervous shock, which would thus lead to an abortion, because of the accident. However, if a person having a close relation to the victim saw the accident and suffered a nervous shock, then Krishnan would be liable to that person. Only if it’s a case of a massive, bloody carnage, which can easily cause nervous shock to anyone, even if not related to the victim, then the person causing it would be liable to all sufferers for the nervous shock, because it’s a direct effect of the person’s act.)

5. C or D (Sensitive plaintiff – “Jeevan, who could not put up with any kind of continuous noise”; also this is one of those questions where question framers slip up in providing more than one correct answer – the same answers, in this case.)

6. A (Trespass concerns possession, and not ownership, as given in the principle itself.)

7. A (Y was handed over the cash in his capacity as X’s neighbour. So, it’s in the nature of a personal arrangement between the two, and the Bank will not be liable for wrongs arising out of that.)

8. B (The checks for this is whether his act was one of necessity or one which he could do without – taking the public road to go to the market is an act that you need to do in order to get to the market, and so if a car injures you, in all rational sense, the driver will not get away with it. Going to watch a cricket match is firstly, not a necessity; secondly, the risk of injury was known and foreseeable and when R bought the ticket and sat in the stands to watch the match, he impliedly consents to it.

9. A (No legal right has been violated. ES has an equal right to earnings as NS. As for NS being established in the vicinity of ES, instead of looking at the fact that ES had already been running, the courts would actually be supportive of the competitive environment; secondly, if NS can charge lower, and therefore, function with less money, then why not ES? After all, they’re providing the same service!)

10. B (He had a legal right, which was infringed  Legal Damage/Injury. Actual damage is not required, as per the principle.)

11. A (Straightforward application of the principle.)

12. D (Straightforward application of the principle.)

13. B (“did not disclose to the seller the specific purpose of the said purchase”; “the cloth was fit for a variety of other purposes”, but not for making uniforms – meaning, that the cloth was fine, generally, but not for what the buyer required it for. Since he did not mention that during the purchase, the seller cannot be held liable.)

14. B (Straightforward application of the principle.)

15. A (The facts are loosely based on Donoghue v. Stevenson. Here, the can is made of tin, and hence opaque. In such a case, it is impossible for the vendor – the café – to determine the contents of the can, and hence they wouldn’t have been liable. Only the manufacturer could have ascertained that, and since they failed to do the same, they will be liable.)

16. C (Simply enough, D was employed to drive the car. During the lunch time, he was not driving or supposed to drive the car. Therefore, acts committed then falls outside the scope of employment. However, if he took a tea break while on an authorized trip, and he picked up a fight, then the master would be liable since it is a wrongful mode of doing an authorized act, in the course of employment.)

17. A (Straightforward application of the principle.)

18. B (Straightforward application of the principle.)

19. B (Straightforward application of the principle.)

20. C (Straightforward application of the principle.)

21. C (Saurabh was doing driving the car for Nisha, legally speaking.)

22. C (The principle is the foundation of the Tort of Negligence, and the premise is that if a harm/damage – ‘the thing’ – occurs, which can only occur due to lack of care, that proves there was negligence. Here, the defendant only has to show the harm occurred and

23. D (Straightforward application of the principle.)

24. A (Straightforward application of the principle.)

25. C (Straightforward application of the principle.)

26. A (Since the right to vote is a legal right.)

27. B (Straightforward application of the principle.)

28. A (Since the condition was to marry C, and “C was dead” already on the day the money changed hands, then at the time of the transfer, the condition had become impossible. Hence, the transfer of Rs. 10 lakhs will fail.)

29. A (Straightforward application of the principle.)

30. C (Straightforward application of the principle. The rationale is that you cannot really determine whether one’s “ignorance” is intentional or not – so, it’s an absolute rule that if a law exists, it must be followed.)

31. B (No principle means you simply have to pick a reasonable choice. Op. A has no factual basis; op. C lacks logic; so does op. D as there would be no need of formal communication if private communications were treated as final; op. B is completely reasonable.)

32. A (Fundamental rights are not absolute and can be restricted so that they do not violate other rights; op. D is vague; A & C are opposites, but C is incorrect since a mere “feeling” cannot be protected as a matter of right.)

33. D (Rule A.)

34. A (Refer to Question No. 16. A tea break during lunch time was said to be outside the course of employment; the same applies here.

35. C (For the reason given.)

36. A (Explained in the explanation to Q. 34.)

37. C (Op. A concerns a personal dispute; op. B and D shows his mode of working is not controlled, and is also outside the CoE; only op. C shows that the manufacturer has control over his mode of working, and also that he was already in his course of employment when he boarded the bus.)

38. C (Rule A gives a right which is absolute in nature; therefore, Ramesh has infinite rights both above and below his land.)

39. B (Casting a permanent shadow over one’s house is a violation of “essential use”. So, Javed & Sandeep should be liable. Op. B precisely states that: even if let’s say she can make do with a flag of a lesser height, that still does not win her back the right infringed by the hoarding. It has to be removed.)

40. B (Straightforward application of the principle, with the explanation to Q. 39)

41. D (Straightforward application of the principle.)

42. D (Straightforward application of the principle.)

43. C (Both Ram and Tom are the ‘consumer’ – one as the buyer, the other as the end consumer. So, both of them have a claim. Since a) the nitric acid can only get into the bottle before it’s sealed, and b) it cannot be spotted in a bottle of Coca Cola, therefore the seller cannot be liable, according to the 2nd principle. Kishen & Co, responsible for adding the ingredients and sealing the bottle, are the manufactures, and hence liable as per the 4th principle.)

44. B (As according to the 2nd principle. The 3rd principle does not apply since it is unclear whether such direction was given by Somu to not name as the actual buyer.)

45. C (Since reasonable care does not mean checking the person’s credentials every time he comes to collect the savings.)

46. C (For the reasons given. The arrangement between Keshav and Rama Bhai was personal in nature. The Bank had not authorised Keshav to deposit money, hence it was neither an authorized act nor in his course of employment.)

47. C (For the reasons given.)

48. A (For the reasons given. The hospital did not benefit at his expense or deprive him of something – the appendix had to be removed from his body. Also 1st principle does not apply, since the operation was completely lawful, and thereafter the appendix was basically of no use.)

5 Response Comments

  • Ankita TiwariFebruary 4, 2017 at 3:47 pm

    Undoubtly helpful one…….as it cleared answers with reasons…..thanks…..

    Reply
  • Minakshi sinhaFebruary 20, 2017 at 6:30 pm

    I agree @ ankita tiwri

    Reply
  • BarnFebruary 24, 2017 at 2:58 pm

    Question number 3’s answer option and explanation contradict each other. So is the shopkeeper liable or not?

    Reply
  • eukti gargFebruary 26, 2017 at 1:30 pm

    um,…i have a doubt in 3rd question…..how can you say the answer is A part……the defendant is not causing ” unlawful interence “. Maybe the supply of onions with the defendant himself is low which means he may not be causing nuisance bhy unlawful trading practices.

    Reply
  • vivekMay 11, 2017 at 11:10 am

    doubt with 3rd question
    explanantion says he is not ;iable for nuisance but anawer is saying he is liable

    Reply

Leave A Comment

Please enter your name. Please enter an valid email address. Please enter message.