1.
Legal Principle: Conversion is wrongful taking or using the goods of another.
An urchin boy found a gold ring. He took it to a jeweller to ascertain its value. The jeweller offered to purchase it for Rs 100. The boy declined and demanded the jewel back. The jeweller refused to give it back.
State whether the jeweller is liable to give back the jewel to the urchin boy.
a.
Jeweller is liable to return the jewel to the urchin boy as possess it.
b.
Jeweller is not liable to return the jewel to the urchin boy, as it does not belong to him
c.
Jeweller is liable to return it to the original owner.
2.
Legal principle: A master is liable for all acts of the servant done in the course of employment.
Keshav, who was the owner of a car, entrusted the same to one Noor Mohammed for plying it as a taxi in
Can Keshav, the owner of the car made liable? Decide.
a.
Keshav is liable tot pay damages to the plaintiff as the clearer was his servant.
b.
Keshav is liable to damages to the plaintiff as the accident was caused in the course of the employment.
c.
Keshav is not liable, as the clearer acted outside the course of employment when he caused the accident.
3.
Legal Principle: Nervous Shock is now recognized as form of causing physical injury and damages can be recovered for the same.
The defendant’s servant was negligently backing a taxi-cab. A boy was riding a tricycle in the vicinity. The boy’s mother, who was in an upstairs window, at a distance of about 70 to 80 yards, could only see the tricycle under the taxi-cab and heard the boy scream but could not see the boy. The boy, however, escaped except for minor bruises and the tricycle got slightly damaged but the mother suffered nervous shock.
Can the mother recover damage for her nervous shock?
a.
No the mother cannot recover damages, as the boy escaped unhurt.
b.
The mother can recover damages, as she was subject to nervous shock.
c.
No, the mother cannot recover damages from the driver, as she was beyond his range of vision and he could not hare reasonably forseen such consequences
4.
Legal Principle: A master is liable for acts of his servant done in the course of employment
A master ordered his servant to dump a quantity of rubbish near his neighbour’s wall; in such a manner that it does not touch the wall. But part of the rubbish touched the wall and damaged it. Is Master liable for the acts of his servant?
a.
The master is liable for the act of his servant as it was can act done in the course of his employment.
b.
The master is not liable for the negligence of his servant.
c.
The servant is liable, as he deviated from the instructions of the master.
5.
Principle: Even if the sovereign functions of the state are discharged negligently the state is not vicariously liable in tort.
Fact:
Ram Seth was a trader in gold. While he was traveling with a bundle of gold, he was arrested by Police on grounds of suspicion and was detained in the police lock up after search. The gold with him along with sundry other things were seized. Later he was discharged. His possessions seized by the police could
not be returned, as a police constable had absconded with the gold. He moved against the State for the tort, committed by the police constable.
a)
Ram Seth would succeed because the servants of the state were negligent and thus caused injury.
b)
Ram Seth would lose because the Constable who seized the gold had fled outside the country and the gold was not with the State at all.
c)
Ram Seth would lose because the acts of search and seizure by the Police Officer were part of the sovereign functions of the State.
6.
Legal Principle: When a plaintiff exposes himself to risk, he cannot later on complain.
During
a
Cricket match, a batsman hit a ball, which struck and injured A, who was standing on the adjoining highway. A sued the Cricket club for negligence. Evidences disclosed that very rarely a ball fell over the fence that protected the cricket field. Will A succeed?
a.
The Cricket club is liable to compensate.
b.
The cricketer who hits the ball is liable along with the Cricket club.
c.
Nobody is responsible.
7.
Legal Principle: In certain cases of negligence, where the defendant’s carelessness is obvious, the plaintiff has to simply show that a thing happened and need not prove anything.
Mr. Pranab had placed a cupboard on the window, while his house was being white washed. Unfortunately while white washing, the painter slipped and while trying to save himself, he touched the cupboard which fell down outside and injured Mr. Kulkarni a passer-by. Is Pranab liable for Mr. Kulkarni’s injury?
a.
No, Pranab is not liable, as could not have foreseen such consequences.
b.
Pranab is liable as he was clearly negligent in placing the cupboard on the window.
c.
Pranab is not liable, as it was the painter’s fault.
8.
Legal Principle: Damages can be recovered for nervous shock.
A on April 1st as a joke falsely told B that his father met with an accident and was injured seriously. By reason of this misrepresentation, B suffered a violent shock and his hair turned white and his life was for some time in great danger. Afterwards B intends to file suit against A. Advice
a.
B can successfully plead the case on grounds of nervous shock
b.
B cannot be successful in his suit, for he should have known that it is common for people to play such pranks on April 1st
c.
B cannot be successful, as his nerves are really weak.
9.
Legal Principle: In cases of negligence, damages can be recovered only damage which is direct and proximate result of negligent act.
A workman suffered a burn injury on his lower lip because of the negligence of his employer. Later the injury turned into Cancer and resulted in his death. Is the employer liable for the death of the workman? Discuss.
a.
Employer is not liable for the death of the employee, as death did not directly result from the injury.
b.
Employer is not liable as the employee should have taken good medical attention.
c.
Employer is liable, because but for the injury, there would have been no cancerous growth.
10.
Legal Principle: The defendant can successfully plead inevitable accident, as a defence.
Raja and Rana went for hunting. When Rana fired at a bird, one of the bullets glanced off a tree and unfortunately hit Raja. As a consequence thereof Raja was injured. Raja initiated proceedings against Rana for recovery of damages. Will he succeed?
a.
Rana will lose, as he should have taken adequate precautions before firing
b.
Rana will win, as he did not intend it and it was an inevitable accident.
c.
Rana will lose because he was engaged in an illegal act.
11.
Legal Principle: If a person keeps a dangerous thing on his land, and the same escapes, he is held strictly liable for damages.
Akrosh planted a poisonous tree in his house. The camel of Bimal, his neighbour, nibbled the leaves of that tree after entering Akrosh’s house and died. Decide the liability of Akrosh under the rule of Rylands V. Fletcher.
a.
Bimal can claim damages, as Akrosh had kept a dangerous thing in his house
b.
Bimal cannot claim damages, as there was no escape of the leaves of the poisonous tree
c.
Bimal cannot claim damages, as he was careless in allowing his horse to stray
12.
Legal Principle: 1) Whoever is under duty of care to another shall be liable for any injury to the latter directly resulting from the breach of that duty.2) Harm suffered voluntarily does not constitute legal injury.
A’s servant left a two horse-van unattended in a street. A boy threw a stone at the horses and they bolted causing danger to women and children on the board. A police constable on duty rushed and stopped the horses. But in doing so, he himself sustained injuries. Can the constable claim damages from A?
a.
A is not liable, because he did not owe duty of care to the road users or Policeman.
b.
A is liable, because he owes a duty of care to all the users of the road.
c.
Both old woman and policeman could have taken reasonable care to protect themselves
13.
Principle
:
A master is liable for the acts committed by his servant in the course of employment.
Fact:
Pratap was a driver working in a Private company. 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 friend Naveen waiting for a bus to go home. He offered to drop him at home, which happened to be close to his office. He got into the car and soon thereafter; the car hit another vehicle due to the negligence of Pratap. Naveen suffered multiple injuries as a result of the accident and he seeks compensation from the Company.
a.
The Private Company shall be liable, because Pratap was in the course of its employment at the time of accident.
b.
The private Company shall not be liable, as Pratap was not in the course of employment when he took Naveen inside the car.
c.
Naveen got into the car at her own risk, and therefore, he cannot sue anybody.
14.
Legal Principle: Where there is no violation of legal right, damages cannot be claimed.
With a view to warding off the water in an overflowing stream. A, the owner of land, constructed bunds on his land, intending to ward off the water from his land, but thereby over flooding the land of plaintiff B. B files a suit against A for injunction and damages. Will B Succeed?
a.
B will succeed, as he ahs suffered damage.
b.
B will succeed as A should have warned him of consequences of constructing bund.
c.
B will not succeed, as A has not violated B’s right.
15.
Principles
:
1)
A doctor is to keep the information given by patient in strict confidence and cannot provide the information to any party.
2)
Information in public interest cannot be withheld
Fact:
Amar, a medical practitioner from
a)
The hospital authority has to pay Rs.5 lakhs or any other amount decided by the court
b)
The hospital is justified in disclosing the information to any one who is
interested in knowing the information.
c)
The hospital is justified in giving the information only to Bindu and not to make the information public otherwise
.
16.
Principle:
The occupier of a premise owes a duty of care to all his
invitees and visitors.
Fact:
Gokul
was running a dairy from his house. People used a part of his farm as shortcut to get a nearby railway station. Gokul who did not approve of this, put up a notice that “Trespassers will be prosecuted”. However since a number of these people were also his customers he tolerated them. One day a person who was using this shortcut was attacked by a bull belonging to the farm. The injured person filed a suit against him.
a)
Gokul is not liable in view of the clear notice against trespassers
b)
Gokul is liable for having kept a bull on his farm
c)
Gokul is liable because in fact he allowed the people to use his premises
17.
Principle: A master will be liable for the act of his servants in the course of employment.
Fact:
Haneef was a driver employed by Indian Oil Petroleum to drive their petrol lorries. He was strictly forbidden from smoking in course of employment. That warning was printed in the body of the vehicle he was driving. One day when he was transferring petrol from his tank to the underground tank of
a)
Indian Oil Petroleum will have to pay, because Haneef struck the match in course of employment.
b)
Indian Oil Petroleum will not be liable because he was clearly forbidden from smoking by them.
c)
Indian Oil Petroleum will not be liable, because
18.
Principles
:
a)
A Person shall be liable for his servant’s act in the course of employment.
b)
When a servant serves apparently under two masters, the issue to be decided is “ who can give orders as to work should be done”
Fact:
Pasupathy was contractor engaged in the construction of a multi-storeyed complex. In the course of his work, he hired a crane from Krishnan for a week. krishnan sent the crane along with the driver Dharmaraj. In the course of work, as a result of Dharmaraj’s negligence, the neighbouring house, belonging to Vijay, was damaged.
Vijay seeks your advice as to against whom i.e. Pasupathy or Krishnan, he should file the case. Dharmaraj testified under oath, that in course of his work, he never took order from anybody.
a.
Vijay should file a suit against Pasupathy, as he was working for him at the time of the accident.
b.
Vijay should file a suit against Krishnan as Vijay is an employee of Krishnan and takes orders from him.
c.
Vijay should file a suite against Dharmaraj, as Dharmaraj said that he never took order from anybody.
19.
Principle: While a person is a master in his own house, his use shall not disturb the similar and rightful use by his neighbour.
Fact:
Ananya and Beena are neighbours living side by side only a wall separating their respective houses. Ananya has been working in an office
and Beena has been giving music lessons to earn her livelihood. Normally Beena used to give her lessons between
But on demand by students, she had to change her timings to
a.
Beena would succeed, as it was Ananya who started the problem in the first place.
b.
Beena would not succeed, as she was causing disturbance wilfully to Ananya
c.
Both of them would be asked to stop their activities
20.
Principle:
Every person has a right to defend his own person, property or possession against an immediate harm, and to that end, may use reasonable amount of force.
Fact:
Mr. Singh was passing by Mrs. Mathews’s house. At that time, Mrs. Mathews’s dog ran out and bit Mr. Singh’s overcoat. Mr. Singh turned around and raised the pistol when the dog was running away. Mr. Singh knew that the dog had attacked so many other people in that locality of
a.
She will succeed in getting compensation from Mr. Singh because he killed the dog, which was not actually attacking him at the time of shooting.
b.
She will not succeed because Mr. Singh was justified in shooting the dog to protect himself.
c.
She will not succeed because Mr. Singh took the action to protect himself as well as many other members of public in future.
The above test paper is based on CLAT pattern and meets the challenges of CLAT.
Do work out these questions to find out for yourself if you are ready to take on the CLAT.
Evaluation and Answers are restricted to SRIRAM STUDENTS.
To know more about our courses, log on to
www.lawentrancecoaching.com