CLAT PG question bank

Law of Torts MCQs for CLAT PG, Page 2

CLAT PG Law of Torts questions 26-50 of 100, with answer keys and explanations covering negligence, nuisance, defamation, strict liability, vicarious liability, trespass, defences, and damages.

100 questions14 topics26-50 on this page
Start adaptive practiceBrowse CLAT PG

Coverage

Topics in this subject

Revise core LLB subjects through CLAT PG MCQs, passage-led questions, answer keys, explanations, statutes, and exam-oriented legal principles.

  • Contributory and Composite Negligence5
  • Defamation10
  • General Defences5
  • Intentional Torts Against Person5
  • Malicious Prosecution5
  • Nature and Scope of Tort5
  • Negligence15
  • Nuisance10
  • Occupier's Liability5
  • Remedies and Damages5
  • State Liability5
  • Strict and Absolute Liability10
  • Trespass to Land and Goods5
  • Vicarious Liability10
Passage or principleR.K. Bangia, Law of Torts - Nature of Tort

The law of torts deals with civil wrongs that are independent of contract and are generally redressed by an action for unliquidated damages. Its concern is not with punishing public offences but with protecting private rights and providing compensation where those rights are violated. A tort differs from a crime because a crime is regarded as a wrong against the State and society, whereas a tort is ordinarily a wrong against an individual or a determinate class of persons. It also differs from breach of contract because the duty in tort is primarily fixed by law, while contractual duties arise from agreement between parties. The maxim ubi jus ibi remedium expresses the broad idea that where there is a legal right, there is generally a remedy for its infringement. Yet the law does not provide relief for every loss. A person may suffer actual harm without violation of a legal right; this is damnum sine injuria. On the other hand, a legal right may be infringed even though the plaintiff cannot show actual pecuniary loss; this is injuria sine damnum. The law of torts therefore focuses not merely on factual loss, but on whether a legally protected interest has been wrongfully invaded.

Question 26EasyNature and Scope of Tort

According to the passage, the law of torts is primarily concerned with:

  1. A

    Punishing offences against society at large

  2. B

    Protecting private rights and compensating their violation

  3. C

    Enforcing only contractual promises

  4. D

    Awarding fixed penalties for all wrongs

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Protecting private rights and compensating their violation

The passage says tort law is concerned with protecting private rights and compensating their violation, not punishing public offences.

Source note: R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts

Question 27EasyNature and Scope of Tort

The passage distinguishes tort from crime mainly on the ground that crime is:

  1. A

    Always committed negligently

  2. B

    A wrong against the State and society

  3. C

    Based on prior agreement

  4. D

    Actionable only by private suit

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. A wrong against the State and society

The passage clearly states that a crime is treated as a wrong against the State and society, whereas tort is ordinarily a wrong against an individual.

Source note: R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts

Question 28EasyNature and Scope of Tort

Which of the following best reflects the difference between tort and breach of contract according to the passage?

  1. A

    Tort duties are created by agreement, contractual duties by statute

  2. B

    Tort duties are fixed by law, contractual duties arise from agreement

  3. C

    Tort always leads to imprisonment, contract never does

  4. D

    There is no meaningful difference between the two

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Tort duties are fixed by law, contractual duties arise from agreement

The passage states that tort duties are fixed by law, while contractual duties arise from agreement between the parties.

Source note: R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts

Question 29EasyNature and Scope of Tort

The maxim ubi jus ibi remedium, as used in the passage, means that:

  1. A

    Every factual loss gives rise to damages

  2. B

    Where there is a legal right, there is generally a remedy for its infringement

  3. C

    Every civil wrong becomes a crime

  4. D

    A remedy is available only after proof of monetary loss

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Where there is a legal right, there is generally a remedy for its infringement

The passage expressly says the maxim means that where there is a legal right, there is generally a remedy for its infringement.

Source note: R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts

Question 30EasyNature and Scope of Tort

According to the passage, damnum sine injuria refers to:

  1. A

    Violation of a legal right without actual loss

  2. B

    Actual loss without violation of a legal right

  3. C

    Negligence causing bodily injury

  4. D

    A wrong arising only out of contract

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Actual loss without violation of a legal right

The passage explains that damnum sine injuria means actual harm or loss without violation of a legal right.

Source note: R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts

Passage or principleR.K. Bangia, Law of Torts - General Defences

Not every act that causes harm results in tortious liability. The law recognises several general defences. One of the best known is volenti non fit injuria, meaning that one who freely and knowingly consents to a risk cannot later complain of the injury arising from that risk. For this defence to succeed, mere knowledge of danger is not always enough; there must be voluntary acceptance of the risk. Another defence is inevitable accident, which applies where the harmful event could not have been prevented despite reasonable care. This differs from negligence, where the defendant failed to take such care. The defence of act of God applies to extraordinary natural forces such as exceptional floods or storms which no human foresight or prudence could reasonably guard against. Necessity may also justify an act which would otherwise be a tort if it is reasonably done to avoid a greater harm. Similarly, private defence protects reasonable force used to defend person or property, though it does not permit retaliation or excessive violence. These defences are strictly examined because they excuse conduct that would otherwise amount to an actionable wrong.

Question 31MediumGeneral Defences

According to the passage, volenti non fit injuria succeeds only when the plaintiff:

  1. A

    Knew there was some danger in general

  2. B

    Voluntarily and knowingly accepted the risk

  3. C

    Was injured during a contract

  4. D

    Could not prove monetary loss

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Voluntarily and knowingly accepted the risk

The passage says mere knowledge is not always enough; there must be voluntary acceptance of the risk.

Source note: R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts

Question 32MediumGeneral Defences

The passage distinguishes inevitable accident from negligence on the basis that in inevitable accident:

  1. A

    The defendant intentionally caused harm

  2. B

    The event could not have been prevented despite reasonable care

  3. C

    The plaintiff always consented to the act

  4. D

    The act was caused by a written contract

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. The event could not have been prevented despite reasonable care

The passage states that inevitable accident applies where the event could not have been prevented despite reasonable care.

Source note: R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts

Question 33MediumGeneral Defences

Under the passage, an act of God refers to:

  1. A

    Every natural event

  2. B

    Ordinary seasonal rainfall

  3. C

    Extraordinary natural forces beyond reasonable human foresight

  4. D

    Any event caused by third parties

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: C. Extraordinary natural forces beyond reasonable human foresight

The passage describes act of God as extraordinary natural forces such as exceptional floods or storms beyond reasonable foresight or prudence.

Source note: R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts

Question 34MediumGeneral Defences

The defence of necessity may justify conduct when it is reasonably done:

  1. A

    To secure larger profit

  2. B

    To avoid a greater harm

  3. C

    To punish an offender privately

  4. D

    To escape all legal obligations

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. To avoid a greater harm

The passage states that necessity may justify an act otherwise tortious if it is reasonably done to avoid a greater harm.

Source note: R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts

Question 35MediumGeneral Defences

According to the passage, private defence does not permit:

  1. A

    Reasonable force to protect person or property

  2. B

    Measured resistance to unlawful attack

  3. C

    Retaliation or excessive violence

  4. D

    Protection against immediate danger

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: C. Retaliation or excessive violence

The passage clearly says private defence does not permit retaliation or excessive violence.

Source note: R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts

Passage or principleR.K. Bangia, Law of Torts - Negligence

Negligence is one of the most important heads of tortious liability. In a typical negligence action, the plaintiff must establish a duty of care, breach of that duty, and damage resulting from the breach. The idea of duty was famously expanded through the neighbour principle in Donoghue v. Stevenson, which requires a person to take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions likely to injure persons so closely and directly affected by his conduct that they ought reasonably to be in contemplation. Breach of duty is judged by the standard of the reasonable and prudent person placed in the circumstances of the defendant. The law does not demand perfection, but it does expect the level of care that ordinary prudence requires. Where special skill is involved, such as in medical or professional cases, the standard becomes that of a reasonably competent member of that profession. Negligence is generally not actionable per se; proof of actual damage is ordinarily necessary. Thus a merely careless act without resulting injury may not support an action. The plaintiff must also show that the defendant's breach was sufficiently connected with the damage complained of.

Question 36MediumNegligence

According to the passage, a plaintiff in negligence must ordinarily prove:

  1. A

    Duty, breach, and resulting damage

  2. B

    Consent, publication, and malice

  3. C

    Possession, demand, and refusal

  4. D

    Escape, non-natural use, and act of God

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: A. Duty, breach, and resulting damage

The passage states that a typical negligence action requires duty of care, breach of duty, and damage resulting from the breach.

Source note: R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts

Question 37MediumNegligence

The neighbour principle mentioned in the passage is associated with the requirement that a person must:

  1. A

    Compensate all persons in society for any loss

  2. B

    Avoid acts likely to injure those closely and directly affected by his conduct

  3. C

    Enter contracts only in writing

  4. D

    Insure every visitor against harm

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Avoid acts likely to injure those closely and directly affected by his conduct

The passage explains the neighbour principle as requiring reasonable care to avoid injuring persons closely and directly affected by one's conduct.

Source note: R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts

Question 38MediumNegligence

Breach of duty, according to the passage, is judged by the standard of:

  1. A

    The most careful person imaginable

  2. B

    The plaintiff's own expectation

  3. C

    The reasonable and prudent person in the defendant's circumstances

  4. D

    The strictest criminal standard

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: C. The reasonable and prudent person in the defendant's circumstances

The passage expressly states that breach is judged by the standard of the reasonable and prudent person placed in the defendant's circumstances.

Source note: R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts

Question 39MediumNegligence

In professional negligence cases, the standard described in the passage is that of:

  1. A

    Absolute perfection

  2. B

    A reasonably competent member of that profession

  3. C

    The most successful practitioner in the country

  4. D

    The plaintiff's preferred expert

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. A reasonably competent member of that profession

The passage says that where special skill is involved, the standard becomes that of a reasonably competent professional in that field.

Source note: R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts

Question 40MediumNegligence

The passage indicates that negligence is generally not actionable per se because:

  1. A

    Negligence is always a crime

  2. B

    Proof of actual damage is ordinarily necessary

  3. C

    Intent is always required

  4. D

    All negligence claims are barred by consent

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Proof of actual damage is ordinarily necessary

The passage clearly says negligence is generally not actionable per se and ordinarily requires proof of actual damage.

Source note: R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts

Passage or principleR.K. Bangia, Law of Torts - Negligence Doctrines

The plaintiff in negligence normally carries the burden of proving lack of due care, but there are situations in which the surrounding facts themselves strongly suggest negligence. The doctrine res ipsa loquitur, literally meaning 'the thing speaks for itself', operates in such cases. Where the accident is of a kind that ordinarily does not happen without negligence and the thing causing the damage was under the defendant's control, the court may draw an inference of negligence unless the defendant offers a satisfactory explanation. The doctrine does not create automatic liability; rather, it shifts or eases the evidential burden. A separate question in negligence concerns remoteness of damage. A defendant is not liable for every consequence in an endless chain; liability is generally confined to damage of a kind that was reasonably foreseeable. This principle, associated with The Wagon Mound, limits recovery where the actual harm is too remote from the breach. At the same time, once personal injury of a foreseeable kind is caused, the defendant must take the victim as found. This is the thin skull rule, which prevents a defendant from escaping liability merely because the plaintiff happened to be unusually vulnerable.

Question 41MediumNegligence

According to the passage, res ipsa loquitur applies where:

  1. A

    The plaintiff has already admitted consent

  2. B

    The accident is of a kind that ordinarily does not happen without negligence

  3. C

    Every injury is caused by a contract

  4. D

    The defendant has confessed liability

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. The accident is of a kind that ordinarily does not happen without negligence

The passage says the doctrine applies where the accident is of a kind that ordinarily does not happen without negligence and the thing was under the defendant's control.

Source note: R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts

Question 42MediumNegligence

The passage emphasizes that res ipsa loquitur does not:

  1. A

    Permit an evidential inference of negligence

  2. B

    Ease the plaintiff's burden in proper cases

  3. C

    Create automatic liability

  4. D

    Depend on the surrounding facts

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: C. Create automatic liability

The passage clearly says the doctrine does not create automatic liability; it only shifts or eases the evidential burden.

Source note: R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts

Question 43MediumNegligence

According to the passage, remoteness of damage limits negligence liability to:

  1. A

    Every imaginable consequence

  2. B

    Damage of a kind that was reasonably foreseeable

  3. C

    Only damage expressly intended by the defendant

  4. D

    Damage proved by expert evidence alone

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Damage of a kind that was reasonably foreseeable

The passage states that liability is generally confined to damage of a kind that was reasonably foreseeable.

Source note: R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts

Question 44MediumNegligence

The principle associated with The Wagon Mound in the passage relates to:

  1. A

    Consent to risk

  2. B

    Remoteness of damage

  3. C

    Absolute liability

  4. D

    Judicial immunity

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Remoteness of damage

The passage expressly connects The Wagon Mound with the principle of remoteness of damage.

Source note: R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts

Question 45MediumNegligence

The thin skull rule, as described in the passage, means that the defendant must:

  1. A

    Be liable only to an average plaintiff

  2. B

    Take the victim as found

  3. C

    Avoid liability if the plaintiff was weak

  4. D

    Pay damages only for foreseeable severity

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Take the victim as found

The passage states that once foreseeable personal injury is caused, the defendant must take the victim as found, even if unusually vulnerable.

Source note: R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts

Passage or principleR.K. Bangia, Law of Torts - Plaintiff's Fault

Negligence may sometimes involve fault on more than one side. Contributory negligence refers to negligence on the part of the plaintiff that contributes to the damage suffered. The modern approach is not to deny relief altogether, but to reduce damages to the extent the plaintiff's own lack of care contributed to the injury. The court therefore makes an apportionment based on relative fault. Composite negligence is different. It arises where the negligence of two or more defendants combines to cause the same damage to the plaintiff. In such a case the plaintiff is not at fault, and the wrongdoers are generally jointly and severally liable. This means the plaintiff may recover the whole amount from any one of them, leaving adjustment to be made between defendants if necessary. The distinction is important because contributory negligence concerns the plaintiff's own want of care, whereas composite negligence concerns multiple defendants causing a single indivisible injury. A court must therefore first identify whose negligence contributed, and then determine the legal consequences accordingly.

Question 46MediumContributory and Composite Negligence

According to the passage, contributory negligence refers to:

  1. A

    Negligence of two defendants together

  2. B

    Negligence on the part of the plaintiff contributing to the damage

  3. C

    Intentional assault by the plaintiff

  4. D

    Strict liability for hazardous acts

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Negligence on the part of the plaintiff contributing to the damage

The passage defines contributory negligence as negligence on the part of the plaintiff that contributes to the damage suffered.

Source note: R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts

Question 47MediumContributory and Composite Negligence

The modern effect of contributory negligence, as stated in the passage, is generally to:

  1. A

    Bar the plaintiff's claim completely in every case

  2. B

    Convert the action into a criminal prosecution

  3. C

    Reduce damages according to the plaintiff's share in the fault

  4. D

    Make the defendant absolutely liable

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: C. Reduce damages according to the plaintiff's share in the fault

The passage says the modern approach is to reduce damages to the extent the plaintiff's own lack of care contributed to the injury.

Source note: R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts

Question 48MediumContributory and Composite Negligence

Composite negligence, according to the passage, arises when:

  1. A

    The plaintiff alone is careless

  2. B

    Two or more defendants combine to cause the same damage

  3. C

    A defendant acts under necessity

  4. D

    There is no actual damage

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. Two or more defendants combine to cause the same damage

The passage clearly states that composite negligence arises where negligence of two or more defendants combines to cause the same damage.

Source note: R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts

Question 49MediumContributory and Composite Negligence

In a case of composite negligence, the plaintiff may generally:

  1. A

    Recover nothing unless all defendants are sued together

  2. B

    Recover only proportional damages from each defendant separately

  3. C

    Recover the whole amount from any one of the joint wrongdoers

  4. D

    Recover only nominal damages

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: C. Recover the whole amount from any one of the joint wrongdoers

The passage says the wrongdoers are generally jointly and severally liable, so the plaintiff may recover the whole amount from any one of them.

Source note: R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts

Question 50MediumContributory and Composite Negligence

The distinction emphasized in the passage is that contributory negligence concerns:

  1. A

    Multiple defendants causing a single injury

  2. B

    The plaintiff's own want of care

  3. C

    Intentional defamation

  4. D

    Judicial immunity

View answer and explanation

Correct answer: B. The plaintiff's own want of care

The passage expressly says contributory negligence concerns the plaintiff's own want of care, whereas composite negligence concerns multiple defendants.

Source note: R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts

Continue revision

Administrative Law100 questions with explanationsADR and Arbitration20 questions with explanationsBSA70 questions with explanationsCode of Civil Procedure 190845 questions with explanationsConstitutional Law100 questions with explanationsCriminal Law (BNS 2023)85 questions with explanations