In Torts, the Remedy is - Legal Reasoning


In Torts, the remedy is


  • liquidated damages

  • unliquidated damages

  • punishment

  • judicial review



unliquidated damages

Concept: Law of Torts (Entrance Exams)
  Is there an error in this question or solution?


Principle: In cases where there is an infringement of legal right even without any actual loss or damage, the person whose right is infringed has a cause of action.

Facts: 'P' was wrongfully prevented by the Returning Officer from ex ercising his vote in an assembly election. However, the candidate for whom he wanted to caste his vote won the election. Still, he ('P') brou ght an action claiming damages. Which of the following derivations is correct?

Mark the best option:
Facts: Manish finds a gold watch lying on the road next to his house. He puts the watch in his pocket and returns home. Has Manish committed theft?
Principle: Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent moves that property in order to take it, is said to commit theft.

The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option:

Principle: An offer made by one party when accepted by another makes it a contract.

1. P offered to sell his house for Rs. 20 lakhs to R; R told P that he was interested to buy a house for 15 lakhs only.
2. C was looking for a house for not more than 25 lakhs; P informed C that his house was available for 20 lakhs.
3. K wanted to buy some old furniture; L told K that he would sell his furniture for Rs. 10, 000.
4. R advertised to sell his old car for a price of Rs. Three lakhs; S found the advertisement and offered to buy it for Rs. 2 lakhs 50 thousand; R agrees to sell it to S.

Which among the above is actually a contract?

The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option:

Principle: When a person interferes with peaceful possession of another person without the permission of the person in possession of those premises, commits trespass to land.

Facts: 'T' just walked over the land of 'P' to reach his house as it was a short cut. 'P' had displayed a notice that it is not a thoroughfare. 'P' did not cause any damage to the land.

Legal Principle: It is an offense to obstruct a public servant in the due discharge of his duty. The right of private defense is available to protect one’s person and property.

Fact Situation: Sidhu comes to the rescue of his uncle who is sought to be taken into a car by some men. In the process, he causes injury to some of them. Later, it turns out that the men were police persons in plain clothes trying to enforce a warrant against his uncle.

Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?

Legal Principle: One of the principles of ‘Natural Justice’ states that, “No person shall be a judge in his own cause”.

Facts: A, a driver of B, a Branch Manager of ABC Bank was caught, suspecting theft, in the bank premises. The Bank management instituted an enquiry and made B the enquiry officer.

Which of the following statements is correct?

Muslim religious foundations are known as

Volenti nonfit injuria’ refers to:

In most cases, a threat of violence made over the telephone cannot constitute an assault. Which of the following most accurately explains why not?

Why is defamation a tort?

What are the remedies provided by the Human Rights Act 1998 are intended to regulate the activities of whom...

Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principles:

  1. Private nuisance is a continuous, unlawful and indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over or in connection with it.
  2. The person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes must keep it at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.
  3. A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would likely to injure his neighbour.
  4. The foreseeability of the type of damage is a pre-requisite of liability in actions of nuisance.

Factual Situation: M G Ltd. was constructing Crystal Heights, a posh state-of-the-art tower for commercial and residential purposes, in Gurugram. During construction, hundreds of claimants alleged that, in addition to dust and noise caused by the erection of the building, their television signals had been interrupted by the tower. The claimants, some of whom were absolute owners, and many others who were renting, sued in both negligences and in nuisance for the harm done to their amenity by the loss of their television signals. Whether the respondent's action in causing the appellant's television signals to be interrupted with the construction of their tower could constitute a private nuisance?

Injuria sine damnum stands for.


I. A master is liable for the wrongful acts of his servant.
II. A person can be called a servant only if there is a relation of employment and he acts under the order and on behalf of his master.


X bank launched a saving scheme for poor sections of the society and the customer can deposit ₹10 per day. Y, an unemployed youth, collected money from several customers, and on behalf of them deposited the money at the bank every day. The bank gave to Y a small commission. After some time, Y disappeared without depositing the money given by the customers. The customers bring a suit alleging that the bank is liable. Decide 

LEGAL PRINCIPLE An occupier is not normally liable to a trespasser except in respect of a wilful act intended to cause him harm or done with reckless disregard.

FACTUAL SITUATION Tony, a Richman, had kept a ferocious dog to guard his house. He strictly instructed all his servants not to go near the dog. Further, a special handler was hired to take care of the dog. Visitors were warned by a prominent warning signboard about this dog.

One day, a 13 years old boy playing in the neighbourhood, running after his ball got into the house. The dog attacked him and kill him, Tony was sued for damages.

Suit and nuisance are

Which follow from the application of the undermentioned legal principle:

Legal Principle: The occupier of premises owes a duty of care to all his invitees and visitors.

Factual Situation:
Devi who was the owner of a big home with a compound wall, constructed an underground tank to store water. This was covered by jute bags since the work was incomplete. The postman who came inside to deliver registered letter fell into this tank and hurt himself. There was also a box on the outside of the compound wall, where all the mail could be deposited. The injured man filed a suit against Devi claiming compensation.

Principle: Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by an omission to do something which a reasonable person would do or an act which a prudent and reasonable person would not do. An action for negligence proceeds upon the principle that the person has an obligation or duty on the part of the defendant, which he/she breaches, leading to damage.

A, a surgeon operated on B. Subsequent to the operation, B complained of pain in his abdomen. On examination, it was discovered that A had left a mop in B ' s stomach while Operating.

Assertion (A): In the event of a violation of any legal right (tort) the aggrieved party is entitled to recover damages as determined by the court.

Reason (R): The object of awarding damages to the aggrieved party is to put him in the same position in which he would have been in the wrong would not have been committed. Damages are, therefore, assessed on that basis. 

Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer:

Legal Principles:
1. The Tort of Negligence is a legal wrong that is suffered by someone at the hands of another who fails to take proper care to avoid what a reasonable person would regard as a foreseeable risk.
2. The test of liability requires that the harm must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant’s conduct, a relationship of proximity must exist and it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.
3. Volenti non-fit injuria is defence to action in negligence.

In a sad incident, 95 fans of a Football club died in a stampede in the Nehru Stadium. The court has decided that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the Police in permitting too many supporters to crowd in one part of the stadium. Now, a suit is filed by Harman and several other people against the Commissioner of State Police. Harman and the other claimants had relatives who were caught up in the Nehru Stadium disaster. The disaster was broadcast on live television, where several claimants alleged, they had witnessed friends and relatives die. Others were present in the stadium or had heard about the events in other ways. All claimed damages for the psychiatric harm they suffered as a result. Determine whether, for the purposes of establishing liability in negligence, those who suffer purely psychiatric harm from witnessing an event at which they are not physically present are sufficiently proximate for a duty to be owed, and thus can be said to be reasonably within the contemplation of the tortfeasor?


      Forgot password?
Use app×