Law Of Torts - Practice Test

[#121] In which case the principle 'ubi us ibi remedium' recognized?

(A) Rylands v. Flecher

(B) Asbhy v. White

(C) Ashdown v. Samuel Williams

(D) Pema Chibber v. Union of India

Correct Answer

(B) Asbhy v. White

[#122] Choose the incorrect statement

(A) An action for slander cannot be brought jointly against several defendants

(B) In libel each person is liable for the entire publication, and therefore all may be properly sued together

(C) If several persons are libeled by the publication of a statement all of them cannot bring joint action against the defendant but must sue him separately

(D) An action for slander can be brought jointly against several defendants

Correct Answer

(D) An action for slander can be brought jointly against several defendants

[#123] The remedy in tort law is

(A) Unliquidated damages

(B) Restoration of original petition

(C) Liquidated damages

(D) Either (A) or (C)

Correct Answer

(A) Unliquidated damages

[#124] In tort, mistake

(A) Of law is a defence

(B) Of fact is a defence

(C) Is no defence

(D) Of law & of fact both are defence

Correct Answer

(C) Is no defence

[#125] Principle: If an injury is the result of a reasonably foreseeable cause, the person/authority responsible is liable for damages because he has a duty to take reasonable measures to prevent it. Facts: Janet, a housewife standing at her balcony, was struck on the head by a ball that flew out of a cricket field across her home. Janet sues the District Cricket Association (DCA), the owner of the cricket field for public nuisance and negligence on the ground that the field did not have a fence high enough to prevent such occurrence. District Cricket Association (DCA) claims that only about 10 balls had escaped the field in the previous 10 years and it was therefore an unforeseeable risk. Is there a duty on the part of the District Cricket Association (DCA) to prevent the risk? Is the District Cricket Association (DCA) liable to compensate Janet?

(A) Yes. As 10 balls had escaped the field, the risk was reasonably foreseeable. The District Cricket Association (DCA) is responsible and is liable for damages because it has a duty to take reasonable measures to prevent it

(B) No. As only 10 balls had escaped the field in the previous 10 years, it was an unforeseeable risk

(C) Yes. A person owning a Cricket field is expected to compensate any injury arising out of and in the course of using the cricket field

(D) No. Anyone who has chosen to stay near a cricket field is doing so at his own risk and is bound by the rule, volenti non fit injuria

Correct Answer

(A) Yes. As 10 balls had escaped the field, the risk was reasonably foreseeable. The District Cricket Association (DCA) is responsible and is liable for damages because it has a duty to take reasonable measures to prevent it

Law Of Torts - Study Mode

[#121] In which case the principle 'ubi us ibi remedium' recognized?

Correct Answer

[#122] Choose the incorrect statement

Correct Answer

[#123] The remedy in tort law is

Correct Answer

[#124] In tort, mistake

Correct Answer

Correct Answer