MCQ on Tort

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)