Judiciary question bank
Judiciary Law of Torts questions 51-75 of 175, with answer keys and explanations covering negligence, nuisance, defamation, strict liability, vicarious liability, trespass, defences, and damages.
Coverage
Practice judiciary exam MCQs with answers and explanations across substantive law, procedure, evidence, constitutional law, and state judicial service subjects.
Total dismissal in every case
Reduction of damages according to the plaintiff's share of fault
Criminal punishment of the plaintiff
Conversion of the suit into contract
Correct answer: B. Reduction of damages according to the plaintiff's share of fault
The modern approach is generally apportionment rather than complete denial of relief.
Source note: R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts
The plaintiff is also negligent
Multiple defendants combine to cause one injury
There is no damage
The defendant acts under necessity
Correct answer: B. Multiple defendants combine to cause one injury
Composite negligence concerns negligence of two or more defendants causing the same injury to a blameless plaintiff.
Source note: R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts
Only a proportional amount from each defendant
The whole amount from any one jointly liable wrongdoer
Nothing unless all defendants are impleaded
Only nominal damages
Correct answer: B. The whole amount from any one jointly liable wrongdoer
Because the wrongdoers are jointly and severally liable, the plaintiff may recover the full amount from any one of them.
Source note: R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts
He committed defamation
He failed to take reasonable care for his own safety
He interfered with land
He consented to all injuries
Correct answer: B. He failed to take reasonable care for his own safety
The idea is that the plaintiff's own lack of reasonable care may have contributed to the extent of injury.
Source note: R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts
Who is wealthier
Whose conduct contributed and in what way
Whether the plaintiff likes the defendant
Whether a contract exists
Correct answer: B. Whose conduct contributed and in what way
Before apportioning or assigning joint liability, the court must identify whose negligence contributed to the damage.
Source note: R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts
Public reputation
Unreasonable interference with use or enjoyment of land
Arrest without warrant
Movement of goods
Correct answer: B. Unreasonable interference with use or enjoyment of land
Private nuisance protects the plaintiff's land-based interest in use and enjoyment.
Source note: R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts
Unpopular only
Substantial and unreasonable in the circumstances
Caused by a neighbour only
Intentional in every case
Correct answer: B. Substantial and unreasonable in the circumstances
The law does not act on trivial discomfort. It asks whether the interference is substantial and unreasonable.
Source note: R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts
A proprietary or possessory interest in land
A criminal conviction of the defendant
An oral contract
Only proof of anger
Correct answer: A. A proprietary or possessory interest in land
Private nuisance is linked to land, so the plaintiff usually needs possession or a proprietary interest.
Source note: R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts
Only a single landowner
Rights common to the public
Only contractual relations
Only movable goods
Correct answer: B. Rights common to the public
Public nuisance concerns unreasonable interference with rights enjoyed by the public at large.
Source note: R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts
A complete defence
Not by itself a defence
Relevant only in criminal proceedings
A defence only against public bodies
Correct answer: B. Not by itself a defence
A defendant cannot usually escape liability merely because the plaintiff came near the nuisance later.
Source note: R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts
Publication to third persons
Escape of a dangerous thing from the defendant's land
Proof of assault
Judicial malice
Correct answer: B. Escape of a dangerous thing from the defendant's land
Escape is a central ingredient of liability under Rylands v. Fletcher.
Source note: R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts
Any use of land whatsoever
A special use increasing danger to others
Only agricultural use
Use forbidden by statute in every case
Correct answer: B. A special use increasing danger to others
Non-natural use refers to a special and unusual use that increases risk to others.
Source note: R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts
Act of God
Public criticism
Fair comment
Malice of the plaintiff
Correct answer: A. Act of God
Traditional strict liability recognized exceptions such as act of God, plaintiff's default, and act of a stranger.
Source note: R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts
It requires a contract first
Old Rylands exceptions are not available
It applies only to minor domestic accidents
It demands proof of malice
Correct answer: B. Old Rylands exceptions are not available
For hazardous enterprises, Indian law adopted a stricter rule where the old exceptions are unavailable.
Source note: R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts
Should shift accident costs to innocent victims
Are best placed to prevent hazards and bear accident costs
Can never be made liable without negligence
Are liable only if public officials approve
Correct answer: B. Are best placed to prevent hazards and bear accident costs
The rule reflects the idea that enterprises profiting from hazardous activity should bear the cost of accidents and prevention.
Source note: R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts
After the employee resigns
In the course of employment
During a private dispute wholly unrelated to work
Only on weekends
Correct answer: B. In the course of employment
The key question is whether the tort was committed in the course of employment.
Source note: R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts
The employer is wealthy
The act remains connected with employment
The employee apologizes later
No injury occurs
Correct answer: B. The act remains connected with employment
If the employee was doing authorized work in an improper way, the employer may still be liable because the act remains employment-connected.
Source note: R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts
Employer remains liable in every case
Employer is ordinarily not liable
Strict liability applies
The plaintiff cannot sue anyone
Correct answer: B. Employer is ordinarily not liable
If the employee acts wholly outside employment, vicarious liability ordinarily does not arise.
Source note: R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts
Contractors are always immune
The contractor controls the manner of work
No tort can occur in contract work
The plaintiff must sue the State
Correct answer: B. The contractor controls the manner of work
The basic reason is that the independent contractor, not the employer, controls how the work is carried out.
Source note: R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts
The work is inherently hazardous
The contractor is famous
The employer gives no money
The plaintiff is a stranger
Correct answer: A. The work is inherently hazardous
Non-delegable duties and inherently hazardous work are classic exceptions to the general rule.
Source note: R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts
Ownership alone
Possession of land
Only contractual rights over land
Public reputation
Correct answer: B. Possession of land
Trespass to land is primarily a possessory action and protects the person in possession.
Source note: R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts
It always causes visible damage
Proof of actual damage is not necessary
Police permission is presumed absent
The defendant is always malicious
Correct answer: B. Proof of actual damage is not necessary
A person in possession need not prove actual damage to succeed in trespass to land.
Source note: R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts
Defamation
Continuing trespass
Absolute privilege
Inevitable accident
Correct answer: B. Continuing trespass
Lawful entry can turn into trespass if the defendant remains after the right to stay has ended.
Source note: R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts
No wrong because there was no bodily entry
Trespass to land
Detinue
Passing off
Correct answer: B. Trespass to land
Causing an object to directly enter another's land can amount to trespass.
Source note: R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts
Necessity
Truth
Qualified privilege
Judicial immunity
Correct answer: A. Necessity
Necessity may justify entry that would otherwise amount to trespass where urgent protection of life is involved.
Source note: R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts