Negligence Questions and Answers

Q: Section 92 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, talks about which of the following?

Section 92 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is headed voidance of contracts restrictive of liability: a contract that tries to limit the liability of the owner of a stage carriage or contract carriage towards passengers is void.The other options describe different provisions. The bar on the jurisdiction of civil courts is a separate section found in the later part of the Act, and the State Government's power to make rules as to stage carriages and contract carriages is Section 96. A restriction on the hours of work of drivers is not what Section 92 contains.

Q: In action for negligence the plaintiff has to prove that :

The plaintiff must prove all of the above.Negligence as a tort has three elements:the defendant owed the plaintiff a legal duty to take care;the defendant breached that duty by failing to meet the standard of a reasonable person;the plaintiff suffered damage caused by the breach, which is not too remote.Each of the first three options states only one element, and failure to prove any one of them defeats the action, so the complete answer is the option that combines them.

Q: The doctrine of ‘res ipsa loquitur’ :

Res ipsa loquitur shifts the burden of disproving negligence on the defendant.The maxim means 'the thing speaks for itself'. It applies where the thing causing harm was under the defendant's control and the accident is of a kind that would not ordinarily happen without negligence, as in Scott v. London and St. Katherine Docks (1865), where bags of sugar fell from a warehouse. The fact of the accident raises an inference of negligence, and the defendant must then show that he was not negligent.So the doctrine does not put the burden on the plaintiff; it relieves the plaintiff of proving the specific negligent act, and it does shift the burden of explanation to the defendant, which rules out the other three options.

Q: Read Assertion (A) and Reason (R) and answer by using codes below :Assertion (A) : The law takes cognizance of carelessness in the abstract.Reason (R) : Cause of action for negligence accrues when real damage is suffered.

(A) is wrong, but (R) is right.The law does not take cognizance of carelessness in the abstract. Negligence is actionable only where there is a duty of care owed to the plaintiff, a breach of it, and damage resulting; careless conduct that harms no one gives no cause of action. So the assertion is false.The reason is true: negligence is not actionable per se, so the cause of action accrues only when actual damage is suffered, which is also when limitation begins to run. Since A is false, the options treating both as true are wrong.

Q: The term 'novos actus interveniens' implies ................. .

Novus actus interveniens implies remoteness or aloofness of damages.The phrase means 'a new act intervening'. Where a free, deliberate act of a third party, or an extraordinary event, breaks the chain of causation between the defendant's wrong and the plaintiff's loss, the loss is treated as too remote and the defendant is not liable for it. It is part of the law of remoteness of damage.Direct damages are the opposite case, where no new act intervenes. Vicarious liability is liability for another's tort, and foreseeable damage is the test of remoteness under The Wagon Mound, not what the phrase itself means.

Q: Two motorists driving negligently and coming from the opposite direction collide and a pedestrian is crushed between their vehicles. The motorists are ................. .

The motorists are independent tort feasors.The two drivers did not act in concert or share any common design; each was separately negligent, and their independent acts happened to combine to cause one injury. Such persons are independent (several concurrent) tortfeasors. Each is liable to the pedestrian, and each can be sued, but they are not joint tortfeasors, because joint tortfeasors act in furtherance of a common design.An accident caused by negligence is still actionable, though unintended, so the drivers are not free of liability. Neither is responsible for the other's act, so vicarious liability does not arise.

Section 92 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, talks about which of the following?

A.Bar on jurisdiction of Civil Courts
B.Restriction of hours of work of drivers
C.Voidance of contracts restrictive of liability
D.Power of State Government to make rules as to stage carriages and contract carriages

Exam Year(s)

DSSSB - 2023,

Answer: C

Section 92 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is headed voidance of contracts restrictive of liability: a contract that tries to limit the liability of the owner of a stage carriage or contract carriage towards passengers is void.

The other options describe different provisions. The bar on the jurisdiction of civil courts is a separate section found in the later part of the Act, and the State Government's power to make rules as to stage carriages and contract carriages is Section 96. A restriction on the hours of work of drivers is not what Section 92 contains.

Discuss in Forum

Provisions regarding Production of certificate of Insurance on application for authority to use vehicle, have been discussed in which section of Motor Vehicle Act of 1988?

A.Section - 157
B.Section - 158
C.Section - 159
D.Section - 165

Exam Year(s)

DSSSB - 2023,

Answer: C

The production of a certificate of insurance on an application for authority to use a vehicle is dealt with in Section 159 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in the chapter on insurance of motor vehicles against third-party risks.

Section 157 deals with the transfer of the certificate of insurance and Section 158 with the production of certain certificates, licence and permit in certain cases, such as when a police officer asks for them. Section 165 deals with Claims Tribunals. They are the neighbouring headings of the chapter.

Discuss in Forum

In action for negligence the plaintiff has to prove that :

A.The defendant has a legal duty to take care
B.The defendant has breached of the duty
C.The damage to the plaintiff as a result of breach of duty
D.All of the above

Exam Year(s)

MH SET - 2018, SET Exam - 2018,

Answer: D

The plaintiff must prove all of the above.

Negligence as a tort has three elements:

the defendant owed the plaintiff a legal duty to take care;
the defendant breached that duty by failing to meet the standard of a reasonable person;
the plaintiff suffered damage caused by the breach, which is not too remote.

Each of the first three options states only one element, and failure to prove any one of them defeats the action, so the complete answer is the option that combines them.

Discuss in Forum

The doctrine of ‘res ipsa loquitur’ :

A.shifts the burden of proving negligence on the plaintiff
B.does not shift the burden of proving negligence on the plaintiff
C.shifts the burden of disproving negligence on the defendant
D.does not shift the burden of disproving negligence on the defendant

Exam Year(s)

MH SET - 2018, SET Exam - 2018,

Answer: C

Res ipsa loquitur shifts the burden of disproving negligence on the defendant.

The maxim means 'the thing speaks for itself'. It applies where the thing causing harm was under the defendant's control and the accident is of a kind that would not ordinarily happen without negligence, as in Scott v. London and St. Katherine Docks (1865), where bags of sugar fell from a warehouse. The fact of the accident raises an inference of negligence, and the defendant must then show that he was not negligent.

So the doctrine does not put the burden on the plaintiff; it relieves the plaintiff of proving the specific negligent act, and it does shift the burden of explanation to the defendant, which rules out the other three options.

Discuss in Forum

Read Assertion (A) and Reason (R) and answer by using codes below :

Assertion (A) : The law takes cognizance of carelessness in the abstract.

Reason (R) : Cause of action for negligence accrues when real damage is suffered.

A.Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is right explanation of (A)
B.Both (A) and (R) are true, but (R) is not right explanation of (A)
C.(A) is right but (R) is wrong
D.(A) is wrong, but (R) is right.

Exam Year(s)

MH SET - 2019, SET Exam - 2019,

Answer: D

(A) is wrong, but (R) is right.

The law does not take cognizance of carelessness in the abstract. Negligence is actionable only where there is a duty of care owed to the plaintiff, a breach of it, and damage resulting; careless conduct that harms no one gives no cause of action. So the assertion is false.

The reason is true: negligence is not actionable per se, so the cause of action accrues only when actual damage is suffered, which is also when limitation begins to run. Since A is false, the options treating both as true are wrong.

Discuss in Forum

Sameer got himself operated for the removal of his one kidney in Dr. Anand's Hospital, due to negligence of the surgeon, who performed the operation a piece of cotton was left in his abdomen. The same was removed by a second surgery for which Sameer was not paid any amount.

In the light of above facts, which one of the following statements is correct ?

A.Surgeon cann't be held responsible as surgery is professional art, highly technical and having chances of human error, for which he can't held liable, howerer Hospital has to pay compensation.
B.Surgeon can be held liable, provided that Sameer is successfully proved that he is consumer and there is deficiency in the service rendered. Again Sameer has not paid for 2nd surgery.
C.Despite negligence, the hospital and surgeon have defence under "Res Ipsa Loquitur.
D.Surgeon will be responsible. The piece of cotton in the abdomen of Sameer is sufficient proof and is a result of Res Ipsa Loquitur.

Exam Year(s)

MH SET - 2019, SET Exam - 2019,

Answer: D

The correct statement is that the surgeon will be responsible, the cotton in the abdomen being sufficient proof under Res Ipsa Loquitur.

Res ipsa loquitur, 'the thing speaks for itself', applies when an accident would not ordinarily happen without negligence and the thing causing it was under the defendant's control. A swab left inside a patient after surgery is a classic example: the fact itself shows negligence, so the burden shifts to the surgeon to explain it.

Option A is wrong because professional skill is no defence to plain negligence. Option C reverses the doctrine, which helps the plaintiff rather than the defendant. Option B wrongly makes liability depend on payment and on proving consumer status.

Discuss in Forum

The term 'novos actus interveniens' implies ................. .

A.Direct damages
B.Damages aries from vicarious liability
C.Remoteness or aloofness of damages
D.A damage that can be foreseen

Exam Year(s)

MH SET - 2021, SET Exam - 2021,

Answer: C

Novus actus interveniens implies remoteness or aloofness of damages.

The phrase means 'a new act intervening'. Where a free, deliberate act of a third party, or an extraordinary event, breaks the chain of causation between the defendant's wrong and the plaintiff's loss, the loss is treated as too remote and the defendant is not liable for it. It is part of the law of remoteness of damage.

Direct damages are the opposite case, where no new act intervenes. Vicarious liability is liability for another's tort, and foreseeable damage is the test of remoteness under The Wagon Mound, not what the phrase itself means.

Discuss in Forum

Two motorists driving negligently and coming from the opposite direction collide and a pedestrian is crushed between their vehicles. The motorists are ................. .

A.Not liable for their act, as accident is unintentional phenomenon
B.Independent tort feasors
C.Joint tort feasors
D.Vicariously liable for the act committed by other

Exam Year(s)

MH SET - 2021, SET Exam - 2021,

Answer: B

The motorists are independent tort feasors.

The two drivers did not act in concert or share any common design; each was separately negligent, and their independent acts happened to combine to cause one injury. Such persons are independent (several concurrent) tortfeasors. Each is liable to the pedestrian, and each can be sued, but they are not joint tortfeasors, because joint tortfeasors act in furtherance of a common design.

An accident caused by negligence is still actionable, though unintended, so the drivers are not free of liability. Neither is responsible for the other's act, so vicarious liability does not arise.

Discuss in Forum

Loading…

Negligence Questions and Answers

Topics

Other Subjects

About Us

Negligence Questions and Answers

Topics

Other Subjects

About Us

Stay informed about all important Dates & Notifications