Law of Torts MCQs

Sample Law of Torts MCQs with answers

10 of the 100 questions, with the answer and explanation. Open a question to try it yourself first.

1. Q1. The usual remedy for a tort is unliquidated damages. What does the term "unliquidated damages" mean?

   1. (A) Compensation whose amount the parties fixed in advance in their agreement
   2. (B) A fine paid to the State as punishment for the wrong
   3. (C) Compensation whose amount is not fixed in advance and is decided by the court after looking at the harm actually suffered
   4. (D) A small sum awarded only to recognise that a legal right was violated
   Show answer and explanation

   Answer: (C) Compensation whose amount is not fixed in advance and is decided by the court after looking at the harm actually suffered

   A tort is a civil wrong for which the usual remedy is unliquidated damages, that is, compensation whose amount is not fixed beforehand; the court decides it after looking at the harm actually suffered. The first option describes liquidated damages, which are agreed in advance and are linked with breach of contract, not tort. A fine paid to the State is a criminal punishment, and a token award that only recognises a violated right is nominal damages.

2. Q2. In the law of torts, what is meant by "malice in law"?

   1. (A) An act done with ill will or spite towards the plaintiff
   2. (B) A wrongful act done without just excuse, even if there is no ill feeling
   3. (C) The reason or purpose for which a person does an act
   4. (D) A wrong done to the public at large, for which the State prosecutes
   Show answer and explanation

   Answer: (B) A wrongful act done without just excuse, even if there is no ill feeling

   Malice in law means a wrongful act done without just excuse, and it does not require any ill feeling. The first option is the tempting one, but it describes malice in fact, which is malice in the everyday sense of ill will or spite. The second option describes motive, and the third describes a crime.

3. Q3. When a defendant in a negligence suit pleads contributory negligence, on whom does the burden of proof lie?

   1. (A) On the plaintiff, who must prove that he was not negligent at all
   2. (B) On the court, which must inquire into the conduct of both parties on its own
   3. (C) On the defendant, who must prove that the plaintiff was also negligent
   4. (D) On both parties equally, each proving the negligence of the other
   Show answer and explanation

   Answer: (C) On the defendant, who must prove that the plaintiff was also negligent

   Contributory negligence is a defence raised by the defendant to reduce or remove liability, so the burden of proof lies on the defendant to establish it. To succeed, the defendant must prove that the plaintiff was also negligent. The second option is tempting because the plaintiff must prove the defendant's negligence, but the plaintiff does not have to disprove his own negligence.

4. Q4. In Leigh v. Gladstone, a woman on hunger strike was forcibly fed by the authorities. When she sued for battery, which defence was upheld?

   1. (A) Necessity
   2. (B) Volenti non fit injuria
   3. (C) Inevitable accident
   4. (D) Act of God
   Show answer and explanation

   Answer: (A) Necessity

   The court upheld the defence of necessity against the claim of battery, as the forced feeding was done to avert a greater harm. Volenti non fit injuria does not fit, because the woman did not consent and was fed against her will. Inevitable accident and Act of God are also wrong, as the feeding was a deliberate act and not an accident or a natural event.

5. Q5. What is the main purpose of a temporary (interim) injunction in a tort suit?

   1. (A) To permanently prohibit the defendant from doing an act after the final hearing
   2. (B) To maintain the status quo until the case is finally decided
   3. (C) To award money to the plaintiff for the loss already suffered
   4. (D) To order the return of property wrongfully taken by the defendant
   Show answer and explanation

   Answer: (B) To maintain the status quo until the case is finally decided

   A temporary or interim injunction is granted to keep the existing state of affairs unchanged while the suit is pending. The second option describes a permanent (perpetual) injunction, which is issued as a final order. Money compensation is given through damages, and return of the property itself is given through specific restitution.

6. Q6. The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 provides compensation on the basis of 'no-fault liability'. What does 'no-fault' mean here?

   1. (A) The company pays only if the victim proves that it was negligent.
   2. (B) The victim does not have to prove that the company was careless.
   3. (C) The company can avoid paying by showing that it took all reasonable precautions.
   4. (D) Compensation is paid only when the accident is caused by an act of God.
   Show answer and explanation

   Answer: (B) The victim does not have to prove that the company was careless.

   The Act was introduced to give quick compensation to victims of accidents involving hazardous substances, and compensation is paid regardless of whether the company was at fault. So the victim need not prove carelessness. The option requiring proof of negligence is wrong because that is exactly what no-fault liability removes.

   Provision: Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991

7. Q7. The maxim 'qui facit per alium facit per se', used in the law of vicarious liability, means:

   1. (A) Let the master answer
   2. (B) The thing speaks for itself
   3. (C) He who acts through another acts himself
   4. (D) To a willing person, no injury is done
   Show answer and explanation

   Answer: (C) He who acts through another acts himself

   Qui facit per alium facit per se means 'he who acts through another acts himself', so a person who gets a task done through another is treated as if he did it himself. 'Let the master answer' is a different maxim (respondeat superior), while 'the thing speaks for itself' is res ipsa loquitur and 'to a willing person, no injury is done' is volenti non fit injuria.

8. Q8. Zoya enters Farhan's land and breaks part of his fence to stop a fire from spreading to the nearby village. She pleads the defence of necessity, as accepted in Cope v. Sharpe. Which condition must be satisfied for the defence to succeed?

   1. (A) Zoya must have taken Farhan's permission before entering his land.
   2. (B) The fire must have been caused by an act of God.
   3. (C) The harm Zoya caused must be less than the harm she avoided.
   4. (D) Zoya must have acted under the authority of a statute.
   Show answer and explanation

   Answer: (C) The harm Zoya caused must be less than the harm she avoided.

   Necessity requires that the harm caused is less than the harm avoided, and that the act is done in good faith to prevent harm. In Cope v. Sharpe, entering another's land to stop a fire spreading was accepted as necessity. Prior permission is not needed, because the defence exists precisely for situations where the defendant acts without the owner's consent.

9. Q9. Which highly toxic gas was released from the Union Carbide pesticide plant in the Bhopal Gas Tragedy of December 3, 1984?

   1. (A) Oleum
   2. (B) Phosgene
   3. (C) Monomethylamine (MMA)
   4. (D) Methyl isocyanate (MIC)
   Show answer and explanation

   Answer: (D) Methyl isocyanate (MIC)

   The gas released at Bhopal was methyl isocyanate (MIC), after water entered a tank holding 42 tonnes of it and set off an exothermic reaction. Oleum is the tempting wrong answer, but oleum gas leaked from a factory in Delhi in the M.C. Mehta case. Phosgene and monomethylamine were raw materials used to make MIC, not the gas that escaped.

10. Q10. To succeed in an action for the tort of negligence, which set of elements must the plaintiff prove?

    1. (A) A duty of care owed by the defendant, breach of that duty, and damage caused by the breach
    2. (B) Intention to harm, breach of duty, and damage
    3. (C) Duty of care, malice, and damage
    4. (D) Breach of duty and damage, without any need to show a duty of care
    Show answer and explanation

    Answer: (A) A duty of care owed by the defendant, breach of that duty, and damage caused by the breach

    Negligence requires that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, breached it, and caused foreseeable damage by that breach, as shown in Donoghue v. Stevenson. Intention and malice are not elements, because negligence is about failing to take due care. The duty of care cannot be skipped, since the plaintiff must prove it first.