Law Of Tort MCQ Quiz in मराठी - Objective Question with Answer for Law Of Tort - मोफत PDF डाउनलोड करा

The correct answer is Option 3.

Key Points

• The Gloucester Grammar School case is the most important case which explains the concept of Damnum sine injuria. Damnum sine injuria is the most important concept in the Law of torts which explains there may be a real harm caused to a person but that harm may not create a legal damage. It means damage without injury.
• So this principle of Damnum sine injury distinguishes between a moral wrong and legal wrong. It states that there is no remedy for moral wrong unless a legal right is infringed. Even if the defendant actions are intentional the court will not award damages until and unless there is a violation of a legal right and injury is caused. It emphasise the importance of legality and necessity of wrongful act or breaches of legal right and support a valid tort claim.

The correct answer is Option 3.

Key Points In case M.C.Mehta v. Union of India, 1986, 

• The Supreme Court observed, Where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm results to anyone on account of an accident in the operation of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity resulting,
  • for example, in escape of toxic gas the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate all those who are affected by the accident and such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions which operate vis-a-vis the tortious principle of strict liability. In such a case, the measure of compensation must be correlated to the magnitude and capacity of the enterprise because such compensation must have a deterrent effect.
• The larger and more prosperous the enterprise, the greater must be the amount of compensation payable by it for the harm caused on account of an accident in the carrying on of the hazardous or inherently dangerous activity by the enterprise.

The correct answer is Option 4.

Key Points

• Vicarious liability is a term that indicates an authoritative party's legal responsibility for their subordinates' wrongdoings. Principal, Parental, and Employer liability are the three types of imputed liability.
• Some of the wrongdoings that fall under vicarious liability are mentioned below:
  • Employers' liability for wrongful acts of employees
  • Principals' liability for wrongful acts of agents
  • Partners' liability for wrongful acts of each other
  • Masters' liability for a wrongful act of servants

 Additional Information

• In Hamlyn v Houston & Co. one of the partners of the form, acting within the scope of his authority, attempted to bribe the clerk of the plaintiff to induce him to commit a breach of his employment contract. It was held by the court that the other partner can be held vicariously liable for a tort committed by one of the partners.
• In State Bank of India v. Shyama Devi,
  The plaintiff's husband had handed over cheques to be deposited in his account to a friend who was an employee of the defendant bank. No receipts of the deposits were collected and the friend misappropriated the amount. It was held by the Court that the employee was not acting in his scope of bank employment but as a depositor's friend when he committed the fraud. Therefore, the defendant bank could not be held liable by vicarious liability.

The correct answer is All of the above.

Key Points

• An Act of God, also known as force majeure, is an unforeseen, uncontrollable, and unavoidable natural event that prevents someone from fulfilling their contractual obligations.
• It is a legal concept that excuses a party from performing their contractual obligations if they are prevented from doing so by an event beyond their control.
• An Act of got is a general defence in law of torts.

Examples of an Acts of God

• Natural disasters: Earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, wildfires, and other natural disasters that cause widespread damage and disruption.
• Extreme weather events: Unusually severe storms, hailstorms, blizzards, ice storms, and heat waves that can cause significant damage or hinder transportation and communication.
• Epidemics and pandemics: The rapid spread of infectious diseases that can lead to widespread illness, death, and disruptions to daily life.
• Civil unrest and war: Social unrest, riots, revolutions, and armed conflicts that can disrupt supply chains, disable infrastructure, and endanger people and property.

The correct option is Ashby V. White.

Key Points

• Ubi jus ibi remedium 
  • ​It is a Latin maxim which means "Where there is a right, there is a remedy".
  • It is a principle that states where one's right is invaded or destroyed, the law gives a remedy to protect it or provide damages for its loss.
  • This means when the law confers a right it also gives the remedy or right of action for interference of that right.
• Essentials
  • Applicable only where legal rights are in existence.
  • There should be a violation of rights resulting in legal injury.
  • Maxim can be used only when sufficient relief has not been provided.
• Limitations 
  • Not applicable to Moral and Personal Rights.
  • Not applicable to those cases where no legal damage has been caused.
  • Not applicable to marriage vows.
  • Not applicable in case of public nuisance.
• ​Case:- Ashby V. White 
  • ​In this case, the plaintiff Mr. Ashby was a qualified voter and he was detained from giving a vote in a parliamentary election by the defendant Mr. White who was a police officer.
  • The party to whom Mr. Ashby wanted to vote had won the election and he filed a suit against Mr.White.
  • He stated that he was detained from giving a vote and his right to vote was infringed and also claimed a certain amount of compensation for the damage caused to him.
  • Mr. White in his defence said that the party to whom Mr. Ashby wanted to vote had won the election and therefore no damage or injury was caused to him.
  • The court held that no damage or injury was caused as the candidate for whom Mr. Ashby wanted to vote had won the election but his right to vote was violated.
  • To restrain a person from giving a vote is a civil wrong and therefore Mr. Ashby had the right to seek remedy from the court of law.
  • The maxim "ubi jus ibi remedium" was applied in this case and Mr. Ashby was awarded some amount of compensation.

The correct answer is Option 1.

Key Points

• 'Ubi Jus Ibi remedium' is a Latin maxim which means that where there is a wrong, there is a remedy. If any wrong is committed then the law provides a remedy for that. The maxim can be phrased as that any person will not suffer a wrong without a remedy, it means that once it is proved that the right was breached then equity will provide a suitable remedy.

Essentials of Ubi jus ibi remedium

• The maxim ubi jus ibi remedium can be applied only where the right exists and that right should be recognized by the court of law;
• A wrongful act must have been done which violates the legal rights of a person clearly.
• This maxim can be used only when sufficient relief has not been provided by the court to the person who sustained the injury.
• This maxim is applicable if any legal injury had been caused to any person, if no legal injury has been caused then the maxim damnum sine injuria will be used which means damage without any legal injury.