1.

Easement is a right
(a) in rem.
(b) in personam.
(c) neither (a) nor (b).
(d) in rem in general but in personam in exceptional cases.

2. Damages awarded for tortious liabilities are –

(a) liquidated.
(b) unliquidated.
(c) penal.
(d) none of these.

3. Defamation by spoken words or gestures is known as

(a) innuendo.
(b) slander.
(c) libel.
(d) none of these.

4. The principle ‘facts speak for themselves’ is expressed by the maxim

(a) Ubi jus ibi remedium.

(b) Res Ipsa Loquitor.
(c) Novus Actus Interveniens.
(d) Causa Causams.

5. The liability of a master for acts of his servant in law of torts is called

(a) absolute liability.

(b) tortious liability.
(c) vicarious liability.
(d) none of these.

6. The case of Reylands vs Fletcher has laid down the principle of

(a) defamation.
(b) conspiracy.
(c) strict liability of land owner.
(d) none of these.

7. Kasturilal vs State of UP is related to

(a) contractual liability of the state.
(b) vicarious liability of the state.
(c) fraud of the state.
(d) none of these.

8. The principle of privity of contract was held to be not applicable in an action for tort
in

(a) Winterbottom vs Wright, (1842) 10M&W 109

(b) Donoghue vs Stevenson, (1932) AC 562
(c) Grant vs Australian Knitting Mills Ltd.,(1936) AC 85
(d) Ashby vs White, (1703) 2 Ld Raym 938

9. The ‘tort of deceit’ owes its origin to

(a) Pasley vs Freeman, (1789) 3 TR 51

(b) Lumley vs Gye, (1853) 2 E&B 216
(c) Rylands vs Fletcher, (1868) LR 3 HL330
(d) Winsmore vs Greenbank, (1745) Willes 577

10. The ‘tort of inducement a breach of contract’ finds its origin in –

(a) Lumley vs Gye

(b) Rookes vs Barnard
(c) Donoghue vs Stevenson
(d) Rylands vs Fletcher

Answers –
1. (a) 2. (b) 3. (b) 4. (b) 5. (c) 6. (c) 7. (b) 8. (b) 9. (a) 10. (a)

11. The ‘tort of intimidation’ was propounded in

(a) Winterbottom vs Wright.

(b) Pasley vs Freeman.
(c) Winsmore vs Greenbank.
(d) Rookes vs Barnard.

12. The rule of ‘strict liability’ is based on the decision in –

(a) Donoghue vs Stevenson.

(b) Rylands vs Fletcher.
(c) Lumley vs Gye.
(d) Champman vs Pickersgill.
13. The principle ‘ubi jus ibi remedium’ was recognized in –

(a) Winterbottom vs Wright.

(b) Champman vs Pickersgill.
(c) Ashby vs White
(d) Rylands vs Fletcher

14. Tort is a violation of

(a) a right in personam.
(b) a right in rem.
(c) both right in personam and a right in rem.
(d) neither a right in personam nor a right in rem.

15. Law of tort has developed mainly through

(a) customs and precedents.
(b) judicial decisions.
(c) enactments.
(d) all the above.

16. ‘ubi jus ibi remedius’ means

(a) where there is a right, there is a remedy.
(b) there is no remedy without a wrong.
(c) there is no wrong without a remedy.
(d) there is no right without a remedy.

17. Maxim injuria sine damno means

(a) violation of a legal right without any damage.
(b) violation of a legal right with damage.
(c) damage without violation of legal right.
(d) no damage and no violation of legal right.

18. The maxim ‘injuria sine damno’ has been explained in

(a) Donoghue vs Stevenson.
(b) Winterbottom vs Wright
(c) Ashby vs White
(d) Lumley vs Gye

19. Maxim ‘Damnum sine injuria’ means

(a) damage without infringement of legal right.
(b) damage with infringement of legal right.
(c) infringement of legal right without damage.
(d) infringement of legal right with damage.

20. In India the maxim ‘Damnum sine injuria’ has been propounded in
(a) P. Seetharammayya vs Mahalaksh- mamma
(b) Vishnu Dutt vs Board of H. S. and Intermediate Education, UP
(c) Town Area Committee vs Prabhu Dayal
(d) All the above

Answers –

11. (d) 12. (b) 13. (c) 14. (b) 15. (b) 16. (c) 17. (a) 18. (c) 19. (a) 20. (d)

21. The maxim ‘volenti non fit injuria’ applies

(a) when one is compelled to do work despite his protest.

(b) when one adopts a risky method of work under his own free will.
(c) when one works under constant risk oflife but during the accident, he was notwarned though
he is aware of the risk.
(d) both (a) and (c).

22. The defence of volenti non fi t injuria, is notavailable

(a) if the consent is obtained by compulsion.
(b) if the consent is obtained by fraud.
(c) if the consent is obtained under a mistake.
(d) all the above.

23. A music teacher committing sexual inter-course with a minor girl having obtainedher
consent for the same under the pretextthat the same is required to improve hervoice was held
guilty of rape in
(a) R. vs Catherine
(b) R. vs Clarence
(c) Ashby vs White
(d) A. vs Williams

24. Volenti non fit injuria is available

(a) when the plaintiff consents to take riskbut the defendant is negligent.
(b) when the plaintiff consents to take riskand the defendant is also not negligent.
(c) both (a) and (b).
(d) neither (a) nor (b).
 25. Inevitable accident means
(a) an act of God.
(b) an unexpected injury which could nothave been foreseen and avoided.
(c) an unexpected injury which could havebeen foreseen and avoided.
(d) both (a) and (b).

26. The doctrine of vicarious liability applieswhen there is a

(a) relationship of principal and agent.
(b) relationship of partners.
(c) relationship of master and servant.
(d) all the above.

27. Under the rule of vicarious liability

(a) master is liable for the torts committedby his servant.
(b) employer is liable for the torts commit-ted by his employee.
(c) employer is not liable for the torts com-mitted by an independent contractor.
(d) both (a) and (b) are incorrect

28. The test of reasonable foresight in determining the remoteness of damages was first
applied in
(a) Re: Polerris
(b) Wagon Mannd case
(c) Doughty vs Turner Manufacturing
Co. Ltd.
(d) S. C. M. (United Kingdom) Ltd. vs W. J. Whittal & Sons

29. When the ‘innuendo’ is proved

(a) the words which are not defamatory in ordinary sense may become defamatory.
(b) the words which are defamatory in
ordinary sense may become non- defamatory.
(c) the words which are not defamatory
in ordinary sense shall remain non- defamatory.
(d) the words which are defamatory in ordinary sense shall remain defamatory.

30. For defamation, a tort

(a) should be in respect of a living person
only.
(b) can be in respect of a deceased person.
(c) both (a) and (b).
(d) either (a) or (b).
Answers –

21. (b) 22. (d) 23. (d) 24. (b) 25. (b) 26. (d) 27. (c) 28. (b) 29. (a) 30. (a)

31. Action for defamation can be brought by

(a) an individual.
(b) a partnership fi rm.
(c) a company.
(d) both (a) and (c).

32. Making fair comment on matters of public

interest is
(a) a defence to an action for defamation.
(b) no defence to an action for defamation.
(c) a partial defence to an action for defamation.
(d) none of the above.

33. No action for defamation lies in cases of

(a) absolute privileges.
(b) qualifi ed privileges.
(c) both (a) and (b).
(d) neither (a) nor (b).

34. A man’s reputation is his property, and if possible, more valuable, than other
property. It was so observed in
(a) Monson vs Tunsands Ltd.
(b) Dixon vs Holden
(c) Youssoupoff vs M. G. M. Pictures Ltd.
(d) Austic vs Dowling

35. The maxim ‘res-ipsa loquitur’ is a

(a) rule of law.
(b) rule of procedure.
(c) rule of evidence.
(d) rule of negligence.

36. The doctrine ‘res-ipsa loquitur’ was applied by the Supreme Court in
(a) Alka vs Union of India
(b) Asa Ram vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi
(c) Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs Subhagwanti
(d) Jasbir Kaur vs State of Punjab
37. Conspiracy is
(a) a crime.
(b) a tort.
(c) both a crime and a tort.
(d) either (a) or (b).

38. The rule of strict liability is contained in

(a) Donoghue vs Stevenson
(b) Rylands vs Fletcher
(c) Lloyd vs Grace, Smith & Co.
(d) Ormord vs Orosville Motors Service Ltd.

39. Which of the following are the exception to

the strict liability rule
(a) volenti non fi t injuria.
(b) vis major.
(c) statutory authority.
(d) all the above.

40. The rule of strict liability is applicable

(a) in England only.
(b) in India only.
(c) in England and India both.
(d) neither in England nor in India.
Answers –
31. (d) 32. (a) 33. (a) 34. (b) 35. (c) 36. (c) 37. (c) 38. (b) 39. (d) 40. (c)

41. M. C. Mehta vs Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086 is a decision on

(a) strict liability.
(b) absolute liability.
(c) vicarious liability.
(d) none of the above.

42. ‘Tort is a civil wrong for which the remedy is a common law action for unliquidated
damages, and which is not exclusively the, breach of a contract or the breach of a trust
or other merely equitable obligation.’ This definition of ‘Tort’ is given by-
(a) Clerk and Lindsell.
(b) Salmond.
(c) Sir Federick Pollock.
(d) Winfield.
43. In which case following, facts were given: The defendants employed independent
contractors to construct a reservoir on their land which was separated from the
plaintiff’s colliery by intervening land. Unknown to them beneath the site of the
reservoir, there were some disused shafts connecting their land with the plaintiff’s mine.
The independent contractors were negligent in failing to discover this. Water from the
reservoir burst through the shafts and flooded the plaintiff’s mine. The defendants were
held personally liable, despite the absence of blame in themselves.
(a) Charring Cross Electricity Supply Co.
vs Hydraulic Power Co.
(b) Rylands vs Fletcher
(c) Smith vs Scott
(d) None of the above

44. In which case the following rule was laid:

‘We think that the true of law is that the person who for his own purposes brings on his
lands and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his
peril, and if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the
natural consequence of its escape. He can excuse himself by showing that the escape
was owing to thebplaintiff’s default; or perhaps that the escape was the consequence of
vis major, or the act of God; but as nothing of this sort exists here, it is unnecessary to
inquire what excuse would be sufficient.’

(a) Donoghue vs Stevenson

(b) Rylands vs Fletcher
(c) M. C. Mehta vs Union of India
(d) Nichols vs Marsland

45. The propounder of ‘Pigeon-hole theory’ is

(a) Salmond.
(b) Austin.
(c) Winfi eld.
(d) Clerk and Lindsell.

46. If an act is otherwise lawful, if does not become unlawful merely because the same
has been done with an evil motive. This principle was enunciated in
(a) Bradford vs Pickles (1895)
(b) Hollywood Silver Fox Farm vs Emmet (1936)
(c) Christie vs Davey (1893)
(d) None of the above
47. Match List I with List II and select the correct answer using the codes given below the
lists.
List-I List-II
(Principle) (Associated case)
I. damnum sine A. Ashby vs White
injuria case
II. absolute B. Gloucester Grammar
liability School case
III. injuria sine C. Stanley vs Powel
damnum case
IV. inevitable D. Rylands vs Fletcher
accident case
(a) I – B, II – D, III – A, IV – C
(b) I – A, II – C, III – D, IV – B
(c) I – C, II – A, III – B, IV – D
(d) I – D, II – B, III – C, IV – A

48. The rule Rylands vs Fletcher is not applicable

(a) when the escape is due to vis major or
act of God.
(b) when the damage is due to the wrong-
ful or malicious act of a stranger.
(c) when the escape is due the plaintiff’s
own fault.
(d) all the above.

49. In which case the following observation was

made by Justice Hankford: ‘Damnum may be abseque injuria, as if I have a mill and my
neighbor builds another mill whereby the profit of my mill is diminished. I shall have no
action against him, although I am damaged . . . but if a miller disturbs the water from
going to my mill, or does any nuisance
of the like sort, I shall have such action as the law gives.’

(a) Gloucester vs Grammar School case

(b) Ashby vs White case
(c) Chesmore vs Richards case
(d) Dickson vs Reutirs Telegram Company case

50. ‘Tort’ which is derived from the Latin term

tortum is
(a) a English word.
(b) a French word.
(c) a Spanish word.
(d) a German word.
Answers –
41. (b) 42. (b) 43. (b) 44. (b) 45. (a) 46. (a) 47. (a) 48. (d) 49. (a) 50. (b)

51. Two persons who voluntarily took lift in a jeep were thrown out and sustained
injuries due to giving away of the bolts, fixing the right front wheel and thereby toppling
the jeep. Principle of volenti non
fit injuria was held to be not applicable to them in
(a) R vs Williams
(b) Padmavati vs Dugganaika
(c) Hall vs Brooklands Auto Racing Club
(d) Wooldrige vs Summer

52. ‘Shock must be such as arises from reason-

able fear of immediate personal injury to oneself’ was held in
(a) Mrs Dulieu vs White & Sons
(b) Mrs Hambrook vs Stokes Bros
(c) Bourhill vs Young
(d) Wilkinson vs Downton

53. Act of State

(a) are directed against another sovereign
state or its sovereign personally or its subject.
(b) being based on policy considerations
and not on law administered by the municipal courts.
(c) both (a) and (b).
(d) neither (a) nor (b).

54. Match the following

I. Vis major A. Town Area Committee vs Prabhu Dayal
II. res ipsa loquitur B. Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs Subhagwanti
III. ubi jus ibe C. Nicholas vs remedium Marsland
IV. actus non facit ream nisi mens sit rea D. Bradlaugh vs Gossett
(a) I – C, II – B, III – D, IV – A
(b) I – B, II – A, III – C, IV – D
(c) I – A, II – C, III – D, IV – B
(d) I – C, II – D, III – B, IV – A
55. Match the following
I. Negligence A. Rylands vs Fletcher
II. Strict liability B. M. C. Mehta vs Union of India
III. Absolute liability C. Glasgow Corporation vs Muir
IV. Nervous Shock D. Bourhill vs Young

(a) I – B, II – A, III – C, IV – D
(b) I – A, II – C, III – D, IV – B
(c) I – C, II – A, III – B, IV – D
(d) I – C, II – B, III – A, IV – D

56. Defamation is defi ned under

(a) Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code.
(b) Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code.
(c) Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code.
(d) Section 491 of the Indian Penal Code.

57. In which of the following cases, the Supreme Court held that the
jurisprudentialbconcept of negligence differs in civil and criminal laws. What may be
negligence in civil law may not necessarily be negligence in criminal law
(a) Jacob Mathew vs State of Punjab, AIR 2005 SC 3180
(b) Basavaraj vs Dhanalakshmi Finance Co. (R) Terdal, AIR 2010 SC 382
(c) Sunil vs State of Haryana, AIR 2010 SC 392
(d) None of the above

58. The Supreme Court in which of the following case held that where pregnancy occurs
despite of sterilization operation, compensation can be awarded only if failure of
operation is attributable to the negligence of doctor and failure due to natural causes
do not provide ground for claiming compensation.
(a) Satyavir Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 3 SCC 174
(b) Shilpa Agarwal vs Aviral Mittal, (2010) 3 SCC 169
(c) State of Punjab vs Shiv Ram, AIR 2005 SC 3280
(d) None of the above

Answers –
51. (b) 52. (a) 53. (c) 54. (a) 55. (c) 56. (b) 57. (a) 58. (c)