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

The correct answer is 'Plaintiff had knowledge and volunteered to take the risk'

Key Points

• Volenti non fit injuria:
  • This legal doctrine translates to "to a willing person, no harm is done."
  • It applies when a person knowingly and willingly puts themselves in a position where harm might occur.
  • The doctrine is a defense in tort law, where the defendant argues that the plaintiff consented to the risk of harm.
  • The key element is that the plaintiff had full knowledge of the risk and voluntarily accepted it.

Additional Information

• Rescue cases:
  • In rescue cases, the plea of 'volenti non fit injuria' is generally not applicable as the rescuer is often deemed to act under a moral or legal duty, not voluntarily assuming the risk.
• Plaintiff has knowledge of the risk:
  • Mere knowledge of the risk is not enough; the plaintiff must also voluntarily accept the risk for the doctrine to apply.
• Plaintiff is employed in a job involving risk:
  • Employment in a risky job does not automatically imply voluntary acceptance of risk, especially if the employment terms do not explicitly state the acceptance of such risks.

The correct answer is 'may sue all the wrongdoers jointly or separately'

Key Points

• Liability of joint tortfeasors:
  • Joint tortfeasors are multiple parties who collectively commit a tortious act causing harm to an aggrieved party.
  • The liability of joint tortfeasors is described as "joint and several," meaning each wrongdoer is individually responsible for the entire damage, as well as collectively.
  • This allows the aggrieved party to seek full compensation from any one of the wrongdoers or from all of them together.

Additional Information

• Explanation of Incorrect Options:
  • Option 1: "May sue all the wrongdoers jointly but not separately." - This is incorrect because the aggrieved party has the flexibility to sue jointly or separately.
  • Option 2: "May either sue all the wrongdoers or only the principal wrongdoer." - This is incorrect as it limits the aggrieved party to only suing the principal wrongdoer, whereas they can sue any one or all wrongdoers.
  • Option 4: "None of the above." - This is incorrect because option 3 correctly describes the legal principle of joint and several liability.

The correct answer is 'Public nuisance is punishable under criminal law, while private nuisance under civil law'

Key Points

• Nuisance in Law:
  • Nuisance is an act that unlawfully interferes with the use or enjoyment of someone's property or rights.
  • It is broadly categorized into two types: public nuisance and private nuisance.
• Public Nuisance:
  • Public nuisance affects the community or the public at large.
  • It is punishable under criminal law because it impacts public rights and welfare.
  • Examples include obstructing a public road or polluting a water body used by the community.
• Private Nuisance:
  • Private nuisance affects an individual or a specific group of individuals rather than the public at large.
  • It is considered a civil wrong (tort) and is addressed through civil law remedies, such as damages or injunctions.
  • Examples include noise, smells, or vibrations affecting a neighbor's property.

Additional Information

• Other Incorrect Options:
  • Option 1: Both public and private nuisance are not punishable under criminal law. Only public nuisance is addressed under criminal law.
  • Option 2: Incorrect because private nuisance is also actionable, but under civil law, not criminal law.
  • Option 3: Incorrect because private nuisance is not merely a moral wrong; it is a civil wrong and can be actionable in civil courts.

The correct answer is 'joint and several.'

Key Points

• Joint and several liability:
  • Under this concept, both the master (employer) and the servant (employee) can be held liable for wrongful acts committed by the servant during the course of employment.
  • This means that the injured party can sue either the master or the servant or both, and recover the full amount of damages from either party.
  • It ensures that the injured party is compensated even if one of the parties is unable to pay.

Additional Information

• Several and not joint:
  • This would mean that each party is liable only for their own actions, and the injured party would have to sue each party separately for their respective share of the damages.
  • This option is incorrect as it does not align with the principle of vicarious liability where the master can be held responsible for the acts of the servant.
• Joint but not several:
  • This would mean that the parties are only jointly liable, and the injured party would have to sue both together to recover damages.
  • This option is incorrect because it does not provide the flexibility to the injured party to recover the full amount from either party.
• May be joint or several according to the facts of the case:
  • This would imply that the liability could vary depending on the specific circumstances of each case.
  • This option is incorrect as the principle of joint and several liability is a well-established legal doctrine that applies uniformly.

The correct answer is 'ultimate consumer'

Key Points

• Donoghue v Stevenson Case:
  • The landmark case of Donoghue v Stevenson established the principle of duty of care in tort law.
  • It set a precedent that manufacturers owe a duty of care to the ultimate consumers of their products.
  • In this case, Mrs. Donoghue consumed a ginger beer bought by her friend, which contained a decomposed snail, leading to her illness. She sued the manufacturer, Mr. Stevenson.
  • The court held that the manufacturer owed a duty of care to the ultimate consumer, Mrs. Donoghue, even though she did not purchase the product directly.

Additional Information

• Retailer only:
  • This option is incorrect because the duty of care was not limited to the retailer. The retailer is merely an intermediary in the supply chain.
  • The case emphasized the responsibility of the manufacturer towards the end user, not just the retailer.
• Buyer from retailer:
  • This option is incorrect as the duty extends beyond the immediate buyer to any ultimate consumer who may be affected by the product.
  • In the case, Mrs. Donoghue did not buy the ginger beer herself; her friend did, yet the duty of care was still applicable.
• None of the above:
  • This option is incorrect because the correct answer, 'ultimate consumer,' is explicitly addressed by the case.
  • The ruling specifically identified the duty of care towards the ultimate consumer, making this option invalid.

The correct answer is 'actionable on violation of legal right'

Key Points

• Injuria sine damno:
  • Injuria sine damno is a legal maxim which translates to 'injury without damage'.
  • This principle states that a legal right has been violated, even if no actual harm or loss has occurred.
  • In such cases, the violation of the legal right itself is actionable.
• Actionable on violation of legal right:
  • According to this principle, an individual can seek legal remedy even if they have not suffered any monetary or physical harm.
  • The focus is on the infringement of a legal right rather than the damage caused.

Additional Information

• Actionable per se:
  • This term means that certain actions are considered wrongful and actionable without the need to prove damage.
  • While related, it is not the same as 'injuria sine damno' which specifically pertains to legal rights.
• Not actionable:
  • This means that no legal action can be taken, which is incorrect in the context of 'injuria sine damno' as it is indeed actionable.
• Actionable on proof of damage:
  • This requires evidence of harm or loss to take legal action, which contrasts with the principle of 'injuria sine damno' where the violation of rights is sufficient.

Force is not reasonable if it is unnecessary, greater than requisite for the purpose, or disproportionate to the evil to be prevented.

Key Points

• Reasonable Use of Force:
  • Force should be proportional to the threat or evil it aims to prevent.
  • Unnecessary force, or force greater than needed, is considered unreasonable.
  • Reasonable force is determined by the context and necessity of the situation.

Additional Information

• Exceeding Limitation of Morality:
  • While exceeding moral limitations can make force unreasonable, it is not the primary criterion used to judge the reasonableness of force.
• Causing Death:
  • Force that may cause death can still be considered reasonable if it is necessary and proportional to the threat.
• Developing Rivalry:
  • Force that develops rivalry may be a consequence but does not inherently determine the reasonableness of the force used.

The correct answer is 'Absolute and qualified rights'

Key Points

• In view of presumption of damages, rights are classified into absolute and qualified rights:
  • Absolute rights: These are rights that are enforceable without any conditions or exceptions. If an absolute right is violated, the injured party can claim damages without needing to prove any further harm or loss.
  • Qualified rights: These rights are subject to certain conditions or limitations. The enforcement of qualified rights may require the injured party to prove that they have suffered actual harm or loss as a result of the violation.
  • The classification helps in determining the nature of legal remedies available for the infringement of rights.

Additional Information

• Fundamental and constitutional rights:
  • These are primarily classifications within the context of a constitutional framework, distinguishing between basic human rights and those specifically granted by a constitution. This is not directly related to the presumption of damages.
• Qualified and quantified rights:
  • This option is incorrect as "quantified rights" is not a recognized legal classification in the context of damages. Rights are typically not classified based on quantification.
• Basic and inalienable rights:
  • Basic and inalienable rights refer to fundamental human rights that cannot be surrendered or transferred. This classification does not directly address the presumption of damages.

Key Points

• Philosophy behind statutory immunity:
  • Statutory immunity is designed to protect certain actions or entities from legal liability to ensure that greater public interests are served.
  • The core philosophy is that the benefits to the public from certain actions or policies outweigh the harm that might be caused to individual private rights.
  • This principle is often applied in cases where government officials or entities are performing duties that are essential for public welfare and safety.

Additional Information

• Private interest can be comprised at any time:
  • This statement is incorrect because statutory immunity does not imply that private interests can be compromised arbitrarily or without justification.
  • The compromise of private interests is specifically justified by the need to protect greater public interests.
• Public interest is always private interest:
  • This is incorrect because public interest and private interest are distinct concepts. Public interest pertains to the welfare of the general public, while private interest pertains to individual or specific group benefits.
  • Statutory immunity is concerned with prioritizing public interest over private interest when necessary.
• Statutory authority can compromise both public and private interest:
  • This statement is misleading as statutory immunity is intended to protect actions that serve the public interest, not to compromise it.
  • While private interests may be compromised under statutory immunity, the overarching goal is to benefit public welfare, not to harm it.

The correct answer is Option 3.

Key Points