Match the List-I and List-II and select the correct answer using the codes given below it :List-IList-II(i) Salus populi suprema lex(a) Plantiff is not entitled for compensation if he voluntarily taken the risk(ii) Respondent superior(b) Held the master liable as all the acts done by the servant during employment are presumed to be done by his master(iii) Damnum sine injuria(c) The welfare of the people is the supreme law(iv) Volenti non fit injuria(d) If there is no infringement of right, the plantiff is not entitled for claimCode :

The correct code is (i)-(c), (ii)-(b), (iii)-(d), (iv)-(a).Salus populi suprema lex: the welfare of the people is the supreme law, the basis of defences such as necessity.Respondeat superior ('let the master answer', printed 'Respondent superior'): the master is liable for torts of the servant in the course of employment.Damnum sine injuria: damage without infringement of a legal right gives no claim, as in Gloucester Grammar School.Volenti non fit injuria: one who voluntarily accepts a risk cannot claim for harm from it.The other codes mismatch at least two maxims, for example pairing damnum sine injuria with consent to risk.

Match the pair :List IList II(a) Scienti non fit injuria(i) He who does an act through another is deemed in law to do it himself(b) Ex turpi causa non-oritur actio(ii) No injury is done to the person who knowingly does an act(c) Qui facit per alium facit per se(iii) An action does not arise from an immoral act.(d) Salus populi Supreme lex(iv) Things speak for themselves(v) The welfare of people is supreme law

The correct matching is a-ii, b-iii, c-i, d-v.Scienti non fit injuria: no injury is done to one who knowingly undertakes the risk (a form of the volenti principle).Ex turpi causa non oritur actio: no action arises from an immoral or illegal cause.Qui facit per alium facit per se: he who acts through another acts himself, the basis of vicarious liability.Salus populi suprema lex: the welfare of the people is the supreme law.'Things speak for themselves' (iv) translates res ipsa loquitur, which is not in List I, so option A is wrong; options B and D misplace (ii), (iii) and (iv).

Match the pairs :List IList II(a) Mutual agreement to do something in satisfaction of the cause of action(1) Acquiescence(b) Actual payment of the sum agreed upon(2) Release(c) Surrending the right of action against the wrong doer(3) Accord(d) Neglect to enforce the right to take action for a length of time(4) SatisfactionChoose the correct option :

The match is a-3, b-4, c-2, d-1.Accord: a mutual agreement to do something in satisfaction of the cause of action.Satisfaction: actual payment or performance of what was agreed.Release: surrendering the right of action against the wrongdoer.Acquiescence: neglecting to enforce the right of action for a length of time.Accord and satisfaction go together as a discharge of tort: the agreement is the accord and its performance the satisfaction. Option C swaps release and satisfaction, and options A and D reverse accord and satisfaction or acquiescence.

General Defences Questions and Answers

Q: Which of the following is a valid defence against an action in tort:-

The valid defence is Act of God.An act of God (vis major) is an extraordinary natural event, such as an unprecedented storm, flood or earthquake, that no human foresight could guard against. It is a recognised general defence, notably to strict liability under Rylands v. Fletcher.Mistake of fact is generally no defence in tort; a person who honestly but wrongly takes another's goods is still liable for conversion. Minority is not a general defence either: a minor is liable for his own torts, except where the claim is really an attempt to enforce a contract void against him. So 'None of the above' is also wrong.

Q: When a person having knowledge that he is entitled to enforce a right, but still neglects to enforce the same for a length of time, then the other party may infer that such right has been waived and abandoned.This is called as :

This is called acquiescence.Acquiescence arises where a person who knows of his right lets the other party go on infringing it for a long time without objection. The other party can then reasonably infer that the right has been waived or abandoned, and the court may refuse relief.Release is an express giving up of a claim, and accord and satisfaction (printed 'satisfication') discharges a claim through a new agreement and its performance. Compounding is the settlement of a criminal offence with the victim's consent.

Q: Philosophy behind statutory immunity is :

The philosophy is that the lesser private right must yield to the greater public interest.Statutory authority is a defence in tort: when a statute authorises an act, such as running a railway, the body acting under it is not liable for the harm that necessarily results, provided it acts without negligence. The justification is that the private right of the person harmed must give way to the public benefit the legislature has chosen to secure.The other statements are wrong or distorted: private interest cannot be 'compromised at any time', public interest is not the same as private interest, and statutory authority does not license disregard of both.

Q: Force is not reasonable if :

Force is not reasonable if it is unnecessary, greater than requisite for the purpose, or disproportionate to the evil to be prevented.In self-defence and defence of property the force used must be both necessary and proportionate. Section 99 IPC similarly says the right of private defence does not extend to inflicting more harm than is necessary for the purpose of defence.Force that may cause death can still be reasonable in the cases the law allows, such as a threat of death or grievous hurt. 'Exceeding morality' and 'developing rivalry' are not the legal test.

Which of the following is a valid defence against an action in tort:-

A.Mistake of fact.
B.Act of God.
C.Minority.
D.None of the above.

Exam Year(s)

Rajasthan High Court Civil Judge - 2018, Rajasthan Judicial Service - 2018,

Answer: B

The valid defence is Act of God.

An act of God (vis major) is an extraordinary natural event, such as an unprecedented storm, flood or earthquake, that no human foresight could guard against. It is a recognised general defence, notably to strict liability under Rylands v. Fletcher.

Mistake of fact is generally no defence in tort; a person who honestly but wrongly takes another's goods is still liable for conversion. Minority is not a general defence either: a minor is liable for his own torts, except where the claim is really an attempt to enforce a contract void against him. So 'None of the above' is also wrong.

Discuss in Forum

Match the List-I and List-II and select the correct answer using the codes given below it :

List-I	List-II
(i) Salus populi suprema lex	(a) Plantiff is not entitled for compensation if he voluntarily taken the risk
(ii) Respondent superior	(b) Held the master liable as all the acts done by the servant during employment are presumed to be done by his master
(iii) Damnum sine injuria	(c) The welfare of the people is the supreme law
(iv) Volenti non fit injuria	(d) If there is no infringement of right, the plantiff is not entitled for claim

Code :

A.(i)-(c), (ii)-(b), (iii)-(d), (iv)-(a)
B.(i)-(c), (ii)-(d), (iii)-(b), (iv)-(a)
C.(i)-(c), (ii)-(b), (iii)-(a), (iv)-(d)
D.(i)-(b), (ii)-(c), (iii)-(d), (iv)-(a)

Exam Year(s)

MH SET - 2018, SET Exam - 2018,

Answer: A

The correct code is (i)-(c), (ii)-(b), (iii)-(d), (iv)-(a).

Salus populi suprema lex: the welfare of the people is the supreme law, the basis of defences such as necessity.
Respondeat superior ('let the master answer', printed 'Respondent superior'): the master is liable for torts of the servant in the course of employment.
Damnum sine injuria: damage without infringement of a legal right gives no claim, as in Gloucester Grammar School.
Volenti non fit injuria: one who voluntarily accepts a risk cannot claim for harm from it.

The other codes mismatch at least two maxims, for example pairing damnum sine injuria with consent to risk.

Discuss in Forum

Match the pair :

List I	List II
(a) Scienti non fit injuria	(i) He who does an act through another is deemed in law to do it himself
(b) Ex turpi causa non-oritur actio	(ii) No injury is done to the person who knowingly does an act
(c) Qui facit per alium facit per se	(iii) An action does not arise from an immoral act.
(d) Salus populi Supreme lex	(iv) Things speak for themselves
	(v) The welfare of people is supreme law

A.a-ii, b-iii, c-i, d-iv
B.a-ii, b-iv, c-i, d-v
C.a-ii, b-iii, c-i, d-v
D.a-iii, b-ii, c-i, d-v

Exam Year(s)

MH SET - 2019, SET Exam - 2019,

Answer: C

The correct matching is a-ii, b-iii, c-i, d-v.

Scienti non fit injuria: no injury is done to one who knowingly undertakes the risk (a form of the volenti principle).
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio: no action arises from an immoral or illegal cause.
Qui facit per alium facit per se: he who acts through another acts himself, the basis of vicarious liability.
Salus populi suprema lex: the welfare of the people is the supreme law.

'Things speak for themselves' (iv) translates res ipsa loquitur, which is not in List I, so option A is wrong; options B and D misplace (ii), (iii) and (iv).

Discuss in Forum

Match the pairs :

List I	List II
(a) Mutual agreement to do something in satisfaction of the cause of action	(1) Acquiescence
(b) Actual payment of the sum agreed upon	(2) Release
(c) Surrending the right of action against the wrong doer	(3) Accord
(d) Neglect to enforce the right to take action for a length of time	(4) Satisfaction

Choose the correct option :

A.a-4, b-2, c-1, d-3
B.a-3, b-4, c-2, d-1
C.a-3, b-2, c-4, d-1
D.a-1, b-4, c-2, d-3

Exam Year(s)

MH SET - 2020, SET Exam - 2020,

Answer: B

The match is a-3, b-4, c-2, d-1.

Accord: a mutual agreement to do something in satisfaction of the cause of action.
Satisfaction: actual payment or performance of what was agreed.
Release: surrendering the right of action against the wrongdoer.
Acquiescence: neglecting to enforce the right of action for a length of time.

Accord and satisfaction go together as a discharge of tort: the agreement is the accord and its performance the satisfaction. Option C swaps release and satisfaction, and options A and D reverse accord and satisfaction or acquiescence.

Discuss in Forum

When a person having knowledge that he is entitled to enforce a right, but still neglects to enforce the same for a length of time, then the other party may infer that such right has been waived and abandoned.

This is called as :

A.Compounding
B.Release
C.Accord and satisfication
D.Acquiescence

Exam Year(s)

MH SET - 2023, SET Exam - 2023,

Answer: D

This is called acquiescence.

Acquiescence arises where a person who knows of his right lets the other party go on infringing it for a long time without objection. The other party can then reasonably infer that the right has been waived or abandoned, and the court may refuse relief.

Release is an express giving up of a claim, and accord and satisfaction (printed 'satisfication') discharges a claim through a new agreement and its performance. Compounding is the settlement of a criminal offence with the victim's consent.

Discuss in Forum

Philosophy behind statutory immunity is :

A.that lessor private right must yield to the greater public interest
B.private interest can be comprised at any time
C.public interest is always private interest
D.statutory authority can compromise both public and private interest

Exam Year(s)

MH SET - 2024, SET Exam - 2024,

Answer: A

The philosophy is that the lesser private right must yield to the greater public interest.

Statutory authority is a defence in tort: when a statute authorises an act, such as running a railway, the body acting under it is not liable for the harm that necessarily results, provided it acts without negligence. The justification is that the private right of the person harmed must give way to the public benefit the legislature has chosen to secure.

The other statements are wrong or distorted: private interest cannot be 'compromised at any time', public interest is not the same as private interest, and statutory authority does not license disregard of both.

Discuss in Forum

Force is not reasonable if :

A.It is exceeding limitation of morality
B.It may cause death
C.It may develop rivalry
D.If it is unnecessary, greater than requisite for the purpose for the disaproportionate to the evil to be prevented

Exam Year(s)

MH SET - 2024, SET Exam - 2024,

Answer: D

Force is not reasonable if it is unnecessary, greater than requisite for the purpose, or disproportionate to the evil to be prevented.

In self-defence and defence of property the force used must be both necessary and proportionate. Section 99 IPC similarly says the right of private defence does not extend to inflicting more harm than is necessary for the purpose of defence.

Force that may cause death can still be reasonable in the cases the law allows, such as a threat of death or grievous hurt. 'Exceeding morality' and 'developing rivalry' are not the legal test.

Discuss in Forum

P and Q, unknown to R, sought and got a lift in R's car, but on account of some mechanical defect in the car, of which R was not aware, one of the front wheels of the car got detached and flew away, and the car toppled. P and Q got serious injuries and later on, P died of his injuries. Q and P's next kin sued R for damages for negligent driving. What defence R has ?

A.Volenti non fit injuria
B.No responsibility towards P and Q who got a free lift
C.Inevitable accident
D.No defence

Exam Year(s)

UGC NET - 2013,

Answer: C

R can plead inevitable accident. The detached wheel was caused by a mechanical defect of which R was not aware, so the accident could not have been avoided by any reasonable care. Volenti non fit injuria does not apply because P and Q took the lift without R’s knowledge and did not consent to a risk of this kind. The ground that a free-lift passenger has no claim is not a rule of law, and so “No defence” is also wrong. The lesson of the problem is that the cause of the harm was a latent defect in the car and nothing R did or failed to do.

Discuss in Forum

Which one of the following defences is not available in Law of Tort ?

A.Volenti non-fit injuria
B.Act of God
C.Contributory negligence
D.Inevitable accident

Exam Year(s)

UGC NET - 2013,

Answer: C

Contributory negligence is the one the key marks as not available as a defence.

Volenti non fit injuria, act of God and inevitable accident each give a complete defence that defeats the plaintiff's claim.

Contributory negligence does not defeat the claim. It only reduces the damages in proportion to the plaintiff's share of fault, so it is not a defence in the full sense, and the key marks it.

Discuss in Forum

10.

The plaintiff was watching a cricket match at a stadium organized by the Cricket Club of India. He was seriously injured by a mighty hit from the batsman. In this case, who is liable to pay the damages to the plaintiff ?

A.The Batsman
B.The Cricket Club of India
C.Both (A) and (B) above
D.None of the above

Exam Year(s)

UGC NET - 2013,

Answer: D

A spectator at a cricket match accepts the ordinary risks of the game, such as a batsman hitting the ball into the crowd, which is the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria. In Hall v. Brooklands Auto Racing Club the spectators at a race were held to have taken the risk, and the same applies to the batsman, who played the stroke in the ordinary course. The club also took reasonable care. Neither is liable.

Discuss in Forum

Loading…

General Defences Questions and Answers

Topics

Other Subjects

About Us

General Defences Questions and Answers

Topics

Other Subjects

About Us

Stay informed about all important Dates & Notifications