Match List-I with List-II. Use the code below to select the right answer.List - IList - IIa. Donoghue V. Stevenson1. Remoteness of damagesb. In re Polemis2. Absolute liabilityc. M.C. Mehta V. Union of India3. Neighbour principled. Lloyd V. Grace Smith & Co.4. Vicarious liabilityCodes : a b c d

The correct match is a-3, b-1, c-2, d-4.Donoghue v. Stevenson established the neighbour principle (3).In re Polemis is the case on remoteness of damages (1).M.C. Mehta v. Union of India laid down the rule of absolute liability (2).Lloyd v. Grace, Smith and Co. is a case on vicarious liability (4).The other codes give the neighbour principle or the absolute liability rule to the wrong case. The rule in M.C. Mehta is an Indian development of Rylands v. Fletcher.

Negligence Questions and Answers

Q: There is a school by the side of the road. Three children of nursery class stray away from the school on to the road. A truck driver, who was driving the truck at a normal speed, notices the children. While trying to save the children, the truck hits a shop and an injury is caused to one person. Which of the following assertions correctly represent the law ?

The assertion that represents the law is that the school management is liable for negligence in not keeping the children within the school premises, as the key records.The school owed a duty of care to the nursery children, who are very young, and failed to take care that they did not go out on to the road. This failure started the chain of events that led to the injury.The driver was driving at a normal speed and acted to save the children, so he cannot be said to have taken no care, and the children are too young to be held negligent. The accident was not a pure accident, since the school's negligence was its cause.

11.

In res Ipsa Loquitor :

(1) Presumption of negligence is there.
(2) Plaintiff has to bring direct evidence.
(3) Plaintiff is discharged from the duty of proving negligence on the part of the defendant.
(4) Court does not give chance to defendant to avoid his liability.

A.(1) and (2) are correct.
B.(1), (2) and (4) are correct.
C.(1), (2) and (3) are correct.
D.(1) and (3) are correct.

Exam Year(s)

UGC NET - 2012,

Answer: D

The statements (1) and (3) are correct, option D. Res ipsa loquitur, the thing speaks for itself, raises a presumption of negligence in the defendant when the accident is of a kind that does not ordinarily happen without negligence and the thing causing it was under the defendant's control. The plaintiff is thereby discharged of the burden of proving the defendant's negligence, which is statement (3). Statement (2), that the plaintiff has to bring direct evidence, is the opposite of the doctrine, and statement (4), that the court gives the defendant no chance to avoid liability, is wrong because the defendant may rebut the presumption. So options A, B and C are rejected.

Discuss in Forum

12.

Which of the following is an essential constituent of negligence ?

(1) Defendant was under or legal duty to exercise due care
(2) This duty was owed to plantiff
(3) Defendant committed breach of such duty
(4) That the breach of such duty was the direct and proximate cause of the damage alleged.

A.1, 2 and 3
B.1, 2, 3 and 4
C.2, 3 and 4
D.1, 2 and 4

Exam Year(s)

UGC NET - 2012,

Answer: B

All four are essential constituents of negligence, so (B) is correct. The plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed him a legal duty to take care (items 1 and 2), that the defendant broke that duty (item 3), and that the breach was the direct and proximate cause of the damage alleged (item 4). The decision in Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) gave the modern notion of the duty of care. Options (A), (C) and (D) each leave out one of the four elements, and so state an incomplete test.

Discuss in Forum

13.

Assertion (A) : A wooden chair while being used by a guest caused injury to him due to defective manufacture. The guest is entitled to claim damages from the maker.

Reason (R) : Manufacturer owes a duty of care to the ultimate user.
Select the correct answer using the codes below :
Codes :

A.Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A).
B.Both (A) and (R) are true, but (R) is not the correct explanation of (A).
C.(A) is true, but (R) is false.
D.(A) is false, but (R) is true.

Exam Year(s)

UGC NET - 2013,

Answer: A

Both statements are true and the reason explains the assertion, which is option A. A manufacturer owes a duty of care to the ultimate user, as laid down in Donoghue v. Stevenson, so a guest injured by a defective chair can claim damages from the maker.

Option B denies that the duty explains the claim, and C and D call a true statement false.

This is the neighbour principle laid down by Lord Atkin.

Discuss in Forum

14.

The rule laid down in Re Polemis case is that the defendant shall be liable for all

A.direct consequences of his act.
B.direct consequences of his act, if he could foresee some damage to the plaintiff from his act.
C.direct consequences of his act, only if he could foresee the kind of damage which has actually occurred.
D.foreseeable damage.

Exam Year(s)

UGC NET - 2013,

Answer: B

The rule in Re Polemis makes the defendant liable for all direct consequences, if he could foresee some damage.

In Re Polemis a plank dropped into the hold caused a spark and a fire. The Court of Appeal held that the defendant was liable for all the direct consequences of his act, though the fire could not be foreseen, since some damage to the ship could be foreseen.

The foresight of the kind of damage that actually happened is the test of the later Wagon Mound case, and not that of Re Polemis.

Discuss in Forum

15.

There is a school by the side of the road. Three children of nursery class stray away from the school on to the road. A truck driver, who was driving the truck at a normal speed, notices the children. While trying to save the children, the truck hits a shop and an injury is caused to one person. Which of the following assertions correctly represent the law ?

A.The school management is liable as they are negligent in not keeping the children within the school premises.
B.The truck driver is liable as he did not take proper care.
C.The children are liable as they contributed to the accident.
D.None is liable as it is a pure accident.

Exam Year(s)

UGC NET - 2013,

Answer: A

The assertion that represents the law is that the school management is liable for negligence in not keeping the children within the school premises, as the key records.

The school owed a duty of care to the nursery children, who are very young, and failed to take care that they did not go out on to the road. This failure started the chain of events that led to the injury.

The driver was driving at a normal speed and acted to save the children, so he cannot be said to have taken no care, and the children are too young to be held negligent. The accident was not a pure accident, since the school's negligence was its cause.

Discuss in Forum

16.

Match List-I with List-II. Use the code below to select the right answer.

List - I	List - II
a. Donoghue V. Stevenson	1. Remoteness of damages
b. In re Polemis	2. Absolute liability
c. M.C. Mehta V. Union of India	3. Neighbour principle
d. Lloyd V. Grace Smith & Co.	4. Vicarious liability

Codes : a b c d

A.2 3 4 1
B.2 3 1 4
C.3 1 4 2
D.3 1 2 4

Exam Year(s)

UGC NET - 2013,

Answer: D

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

Donoghue v. Stevenson established the neighbour principle (3).
In re Polemis is the case on remoteness of damages (1).
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India laid down the rule of absolute liability (2).
Lloyd v. Grace, Smith and Co. is a case on vicarious liability (4).

The other codes give the neighbour principle or the absolute liability rule to the wrong case. The rule in M.C. Mehta is an Indian development of Rylands v. Fletcher.

Discuss in Forum

17.

In an action for the tort of negligence, what is not required to be proved by the plaintiff is that

A.there is damage
B.duty-situation arises
C.breach of duty owed to some one
D.breach of duty owed to the plaintiff

Exam Year(s)

UGC NET - 2013,

Answer: C

In an action for negligence the plaintiff must prove a duty situation, breach of the duty owed to the plaintiff, and damage resulting from the breach. A breach of duty owed to someone in general is not enough and is not required to be shown, since the duty must be owed to the plaintiff himself. So option C, breach of duty owed to someone, is what need not be proved. The three elements are duty, breach and damage, and the duty must be owed to the plaintiff, which in Donoghue v. Stevenson was settled by the neighbour test, so a duty owed to some other person would not support the claim.

Discuss in Forum

18.

The 'standard of care' generally used in care of negligence is

A.the care taken by an intelligent and prudent man.
B.the skill and care taken by a qualified and competent person.
C.the foresight of an adult person.
D.the care and skill of a prudent and careful man belonging to defendant's calling or business or skill.

Exam Year(s)

UGC NET - 2014,

Answer: D

The standard of care in negligence is the care and skill of a prudent and careful man belonging to the defendant's calling, business or skill. A professional is judged by the standard of the ordinary competent person in that profession.

The other options state general or partial formulations, such as the intelligent and prudent man or foresight of an adult person, and do not refer to the defendant's calling, which is how the keyed answer is more specific.

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