Law of Torts and Consumer Protection MCQ Quiz in తెలుగు - Objective Question with Answer for Law of Torts and Consumer Protection - ముఫ్త్ [PDF] డౌన్‌లోడ్ కరెన్

Key Points

The principle of "Volenti non fit injuria" directly applies to the scenario provided, where A gives B, a doctor, her consent for an operation but later sues him for performing that surgery. "Volenti non fit injuria" is a Latin maxim that translates to "to a willing person, no injury is done." This legal doctrine holds that if someone voluntarily consents to a known risk, they cannot later claim to be injured by the actions they consented to. Essentially, one cannot seek damages for harm to which they willingly and knowingly consented.

Applying this principle to the case:

Consent: A gave explicit consent to B for the surgery. This consent means that A was willing to undergo the surgery, fully aware of the inherent risks associated with medical procedures. By agreeing to the surgery, A took on the risks involved.

Application of Volenti non fit injuria: Given that A consented to the surgery, she effectively accepted the risk of any complications or outcomes directly related to the procedure. This acceptance acts as a defense for B against a lawsuit for the injuries or outcomes that were risks of the surgery.

Limits of the Doctrine: It's important to note that the defense of "Volenti non fit injuria" has limitations. The doctrine does not protect against acts that go beyond what was consented to or against harm caused by gross negligence or intentional misconduct. In the context of this scenario, as long as B performed the operation within the scope of A's consent and adhered to the professional standards of care, the principle of "Volenti non fit injuria" would likely shield B from liability in a lawsuit by A for performing the surgery.

In summary, under the pretext of "Volenti non fit injuria," A would not succeed in an action against B for performing the surgery because A's consent to the surgery indicates her acceptance of the risks. This voluntary acceptance of risk means that B's performance of the surgery, in line with A's consent, does not constitute an injury for which A can claim damages.

Key Points

Option 3, "Scienti non fit Injuria," is not a recognized general defense in tort law. Let's briefly go over each option for clarity:

Volenti non fit injuria: This Latin phrase means "to a willing person, no injury is done." This defense applies when a person has voluntarily consented to assume the risk of harm. It's a recognized defense in many tort cases, particularly when the plaintiff knowingly and willingly puts themselves in a risky situation.

Act of God: An "Act of God" defense refers to any events caused by natural forces that are unavoidable and could not have been prevented by human foresight or intervention. This defense can be used in situations where, for instance, a natural disaster causes damage or harm, and the defendant argues that it was not possible to prevent or mitigate the effects.

Scienti non fit Injuria: This option is not a recognized general defense in tort law and appears to be a mix-up or misunderstanding. Therefore, option 3 is correctly identified as not being a general defense.

Plaintiff the wrongdoer: This principle, sometimes encapsulated in the Latin maxim "ex turpi causa non oritur actio" (from a dishonorable cause, an action does not arise), means that a plaintiff cannot pursue a legal remedy if it arises in the context of their own illegal act. This can serve as a defense in situations where the plaintiff's wrongdoing is directly related to the harm they suffered.

option 3 as the correct answer aligns with these explanations, as "Scienti non fit Injuria" is not a recognized term or general defense in tort law.

Key Points

The Latin phrase "volenti non fit injuria" translates to "to a willing person, no injury is done," or more simply, if someone willingly places themselves in a position where harm might result, knowing that some degree of harm might result, they are not able to bring a claim against the other party in tort law. This means they have voluntarily accepted the risks involved.

Hence, the correct option is:

Option 2) Voluntarily acceptance of injury

Key Points

Mens rea: - Mens rea, or the intention to commit a wrongful act, is not a necessary element of a tort. Tort law primarily focuses on the wrongful act itself and its consequences, rather than the perpetrator's intention. This distinguishes torts from criminal offenses, where mens rea is a critical component. - In tort law, liability can often be established based on negligence or strict liability, without needing to prove the defendant's intent to harm. Wrongful act: - A wrongful act, or tortious act, is a fundamental element of tort. It refers to an action or omission that infringes on the rights of another, leading to civil legal liability. Without a wrongful act, there cannot be a tort.

Damage: - Damage, or harm suffered by the plaintiff, is another essential element of tort. The purpose of tort law is to provide remedies for the injuries or damages suffered by individuals due to the wrongful acts of others. Without demonstrable damage, there is typically no basis for a tort claim.

Remedy: - The provision of a remedy is a key aspect of tort law. The law seeks to provide a form of redress to the injured party, usually in the form of monetary compensation (damages) or, in some cases, an injunction to prevent further harm. The availability of a remedy confirms the presence of a legal wrong that needs to be addressed.

Gloucester Grammar School Case  is not related to the 'Tort of Negligence'

Key Points

Gloucester Grammar School Case

• The Gloucester Grammar School Case is not related to the 'Tort of Negligence'.
• Instead, it is a foundational case in English law that deals with the concept of economic loss and competition, not negligence.
• It involved a dispute where a schoolmaster set up a rival school, leading to a loss of students (and thus, income) for the original school.
• The case is often cited in discussions about the law of economic torts, specifically regarding the legality of competitive behavior and the limits of lawful competition.

Additional Information

Donoghue V/s Stevenson:

• This is a landmark case in the development of negligence law in the UK and worldwide.
• It established the principle that one owes a duty of care to those who could be foreseeably harmed by one's actions or inactions, famously illustrated by the case of a snail found in a bottle of ginger beer.
• This case is foundational to the modern law of negligence.

Municipal Corporation of Delhi V/s Subhagvanti:

• This case is related to negligence, specifically in the context of liability of public bodies.
• It involved the collapse of a clock tower in Chandni Chowk, Delhi, causing several fatalities.
• The court held the Municipal Corporation of Delhi liable for negligence in failing to maintain the structure, thereby establishing the principle that public bodies can be held to account for negligence.

Ramesh Kumar Nayak V/s Union of India:

• This case also pertains to negligence, particularly in the context of employer's liability for the acts of its employees.
• It illustrates the principle that employers (including the government or its agencies, in this case) can be held liable for negligent acts committed by their employees in the course of their employment.

The Gloucester Grammar School Case's relevance to economic loss and competition, as opposed to the direct infliction of harm or injury through negligence, sets it apart from the other options, making it the correct answer as the case not related to the 'Tort of Negligence'.

The correct answer is option 4.

Key Points 

Explanation:

• An inevitable accident is a defense where the injury or harm occurred despite taking reasonable care and precautions. It refers to situations where harm is caused by an unforeseen event, and it could not have been avoided, even by someone acting with due diligence. This is not applicable if the injury was the result of negligence that could have been avoided by taking appropriate care. The key is that the accident was unavoidable, such as in the Stanley v. Powell case where the defendant fired a shot that accidentally injured the plaintiff, despite no intention or negligence on the defendant’s part.

 The correct answer is Option 3.

Key Points

Explanation:

• In tort law, the usual remedy for a civil wrong is unliquidated damages. Unliquidated damages are damages that have not been pre-determined and are decided by the court based on the circumstances of the case. They are meant to compensate the injured party for the harm they have suffered as a result of the tort.
  • For example, if a person is injured due to someone else's negligence, the court will decide how much compensation should be awarded to the injured party, taking into account the nature and extent of the harm, including any physical injury, emotional distress, or financial losses.
• Liquidated damages, on the other hand, are predetermined and agreed upon in a contract for a breach of contract case, not tort.
• Punitive damages are awarded in some tort cases, but they are designed to punish the wrongdoer rather than compensate the victim, and they are not the standard remedy in tort law.
• Specific performance is a remedy typically used in contract law, where the court orders the party in breach to perform their obligations, but it is not relevant in tort law.

The correct answer is option 2.

Key Points

Explanation:

• The term "tort" comes from the Latin word "tortum", which means "twisted" or "crooked." The connection here is that tort law deals with acts that twist or violate the natural rights of individuals in a society. A tort is essentially a wrongful act or infringement upon a person’s rights, whether personal or property-related, causing harm to the individual. This legal concept is rooted in civil wrongs that don’t stem from criminal law, focusing on compensation rather than punishment.
• Tort law has evolved to address various wrongful acts such as negligence, defamation, and trespass, but the fundamental idea comes from this notion of "twisting" someone's rights or duties.

The correct option is 'A-IV, B-III, C-I, D-II'.

Key Points

Here is the correct match of Rules with their respective Explanation:

1. A. Rule of Foreseeability Test → IV. Wagon Mound No. 1 case

   • The rule of foreseeability was established in the Wagon Mound No. 1 case. It states that liability is limited to damages that are reasonably foreseeable.

2. B. Rule of Proximity → III. Negligence

   • Proximity is a key element in establishing a duty of care in negligence cases. It refers to the closeness or relationship between the defendant and the claimant, determining whether a duty of care exists.

3. C. Tort of Conspiracy → I. Two or more persons combine to injure a third party by unlawful means

   • The tort of conspiracy involves two or more persons agreeing to use unlawful means to harm a third party.

4. D. Test of Directness → II. Re Polemis

   • The test of directness, from the Re Polemis case, holds that a defendant is liable for all direct consequences of their negligent actions, regardless of whether they were foreseeable.

The correct answer is Option 1.

Key Points To arrange the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 in the correct chronological order, let's refer to the relevant sections of the Act:

1. Central Consumer Protection Council (Section 4)
   The Act establishes the Central Consumer Protection Council (CCPC) under Section 4, which functions as an advisory body at the national level, focusing on the protection and promotion of consumer rights.

2. District Consumer Protection Council (Section 8)
   Section 8 introduces the District Consumer Protection Council, which serves as an advisory body at the district level to address local consumer issues and ensure the Act’s implementation at a more localized level.

3. Central Consumer Protection Authority (Section 10)
   Following the councils, the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) is established under Section 10. This regulatory body is empowered to promote, protect, and enforce the rights of consumers, along with addressing unfair trade practices and misleading advertisements.

4. Investigation Wing (Section 15)
   Under Section 15, the Act sets up an Investigation Wing within the CCPA to enforce compliance and investigate any violation of consumer rights. This wing plays a crucial role in examining cases and complaints filed with the authority.

5. Consumer Mediation Cell (Section 74)
   Finally, Section 74 provides for the establishment of Consumer Mediation Cells to facilitate out-of-court dispute resolution. These cells aim to promote amicable settlements and speed up the dispute resolution process through mediation.

The chronological order of the provisions in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, based on the relevant sections, is: B, A, C, D, E

The correct answer is: Option 1: B, A, C, D, E