Law Maker
All subjects

Law of Torts MCQs and mock tests

132 distinct Law of Torts questions are in live Law Maker papers, used across 13 exams. Each was checked against the official text and comes with the answer and an explanation once you submit.

Build a Law of Torts test10 to 100 questions, your timer and marking, new questions first. Free account needed.

Law of Torts practice sets

2 sets, 1 free.

Exams with Law of Torts questions

Sample Law of Torts questions

From free papers. Try each one before you open the answer.

  1. Question 1 · Law of Torts Practice Set 1

    In Bhim Singh v. State of J&K (1985), where a member of the Legislative Assembly had been illegally arrested and detained, the Supreme Court:

    1. A. directed the arresting officers to be prosecuted, but no more
    2. B. left him to file a civil suit for damages against the police
    3. C. declined compensation, since he had already been released
    4. D. directed the State to pay him Rs. 50,000 as compensation
    Show the answer

    D. directed the State to pay him Rs. 50,000 as compensation

    Holding that his constitutional rights had been violated, the Court in Bhim Singh (AIR 1986 SC 494, decided 22 Nov 1985) relied on Rudul Sah and directed the State to pay him Rs. 50,000 by way of compensation, although he was no longer in detention.

  2. Question 2 · Law of Torts Practice Set 1

    In the law of torts, an 'inevitable accident' is an accident which:

    1. A. could not have been avoided by the care that the circumstances required
    2. B. was caused solely by natural forces of an extraordinary and violent kind
    3. C. happened while the plaintiff himself was engaged in doing an unlawful act
    4. D. resulted from the deliberate wrongful act of some third person or stranger
    Show the answer

    A. could not have been avoided by the care that the circumstances required

    Inevitable accident is one which the defendant could not have avoided by the kind and degree of care necessary in the circumstances. An event due exclusively to extraordinary natural forces is the separate defence of act of God.

  3. Question 3 · Law of Torts Practice Set 1

    In R.R.N. Ramalinga Nadar v. V. Narayana Reddiar (Kerala High Court), goods booked with a public lorry service were robbed on the way by an unruly mob taking part in an agitation. The court held that:

    1. A. the carrier was liable only if negligence on its part was proved by the owner
    2. B. the looting was not an act of God, and the carrier was liable for the loss
    3. C. the carrier was not liable, since the loss was an inevitable accident to it
    4. D. the looting was an act of God, and the carrier was not liable for the loss
    Show the answer

    B. the looting was not an act of God, and the carrier was liable for the loss

    A common carrier is an insurer of the goods and is answerable even without negligence, except for loss by act of God or the King's enemies. The criminal acts of an unruly mob are human agency, not an act of God, so the carrier was held liable (AIR 1971 Ker 197).

  4. Question 4 · Law of Torts Practice Set 1

    According to Bradford Corporation v. Pickles (1895), where a person does on his own land an act which he has a legal right to do, the fact that his motive is malicious:

    1. A. makes it actionable if loss is proved
    2. B. makes it actionable as a nuisance per se
    3. C. does not make the act actionable
    4. D. puts on him the burden of justifying it
    Show the answer

    C. does not make the act actionable

    Bradford Corporation v. Pickles, [1895] AC 587, holds that a lawful act does not become wrongful because it is done with a bad motive; the test is whether the defendant had a right to do the act, however selfish or malicious his conduct.

  5. Question 5 · Law of Torts Practice Set 1

    P, a Government inspector of munitions, was lawfully inside D's ammunition factory when a shell being manufactured there exploded and injured her. No negligence on D's part could be proved. P sued D relying only on the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. Following Read v. Lyons (1947), the claim:

    1. A. fails, as P accepted the risk of explosion by entering the factory
    2. B. succeeds, as manufacturing explosive shells is a non-natural use of land
    3. C. fails, as nothing escaped from D's premises to a place outside them
    4. D. succeeds, as the shells were dangerous things kept for D's own purposes
    Show the answer

    C. fails, as nothing escaped from D's premises to a place outside them

    In Read v. Lyons, [1947] AC 156, the House of Lords held that the rule requires an escape from a place under the defendant's occupation or control to a place outside it; since the plaintiff was injured within the premises, the rule did not apply.