Principles of Tort Liability for CLAT - Practice Questions & MCQ

Read the following passage and answer the questions 

Law attributes personality to all those entities that are capable of bearing rights or duties, so any entity which is capable of the same is treated as a person or personality under the law whether or not that entity is a human being or not. Such a conception of legal personality has resulted in the inclusion of entities like companies, idols, etc. A mere association of individuals does not form a legal person until the law recognizes, over and above the associated individuals, a fictitious being that represents them but it is not identical with them.

Legal personality is a particular device by which the law creates units to which it ascribes certain powers. One of the essential requirements of a legal personality is that the personality may, possess status.

Professor Keeton observes that the juristic person is the personification of the sum total of legal rules applicable to a plurality of persons. The conception of the juristic personality involves a double fiction, at first by fiction we create a unity, and then by a second fiction we attribute to it the wills of individual men. Salmond defines a juristic person as any subject- matter other than a human being to which the law attributes personality. The dead person is not a legal person as he cannot be a bearer of rights and duties; though the law does prohibit defamation of the dead (Section 499, The Indian Penal Code, 1860) as well as give effect to his will. Everyone is interested in maintaining a reputation even after death. The reputation of a dead person receives some degree of protection from criminal law. A defamation suit can be filed for the loss of reputation of a dead person. If the publication is an attack on the internet of living persons, as a matter of fact, this right is in reality not that of the dead person but of his living descendants.

Question: Kolo Co. Ltd. Is in the news because the majority of shareholders died during a fire accident at their annual meeting. The remaining shareholders also sold off their shares, in the present situation with the change in core members and shareholders of the company whether the company still subsists.

Passage 4

Read the passage and answer the questions that follow.

Every person in our country is entitled to some legal right. Law imposes a duty on every individual to respect the legal right bestowed on others and any person interfering with someone else’s enjoyment of their legal right is said to have committed a tort. The underlying principle of the law of tort is that every person has certain interests which are protected by law. Any act of omission or commission which causes damage to the legally protected interest of an individual shall be considered to be a tort, the remedy for which is an action for unliquidated damages. A tort is generally a breach of duty. In India, the law of tort is uncodified and is still in the process of development. According to the principle laid down in this case the Secretary of State can be liable only for acts of non-sovereign nature, liability will not accrue for sovereign acts. But the judgment of P. and O. Steam Navigation case was differently interpreted in Secretary of State v. Hari Bhanji. In this case, it was held that if claims do not arise out of acts of State, the civil Courts could entertain them. The conflicting position before the commencement of the Constitution has been set at rest in the well-known judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati, where the driver of a jeep, owned and maintained by the State of Rajasthan for the official use of the Collector of the district, drove it rashly and negligently while taking it back from the workshop to the residence of the Collector after repairs, and knocked down a pedestrian and fatally injured him. The Supreme Court held that the State was vicariously liable for damages caused by the negligence of the driver. The decision of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati, Kesoram Poddar v. Secretary of State for India, introduces an important qualification on the State immunity in tort based on the doctrines of sovereign and non-sovereign functions. It decided that the immunity for State action can only be claimed if the act in question was done in the course of the exercise of sovereign functions. Then came the important case of Kasturi Lal v. State of U. P. where the Government was not held liable for the tort committed by its servant because the tort was said to have been committed by him in the course of the discharge of statutory duties. The statutory functions imposed on the employee were referable to and ultimately based on the delegation of the sovereign powers of the State. The Court held that the Government was not liable as the activity involved was a sovereign activity. There are, on the other hand, a good number of cases where the courts, although have maintained the distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign functions yet in practice have transformed their attitude holding most of the functions of the government as non-sovereign.

Question : X on purpose locks another person in a room without the consent of the person being locked. This act falls under which principle of tort?

Even if the Breach is not intentional, Negligence and Carelessness is … 

A files a lawsuit against B for tresspassing into A's House. Here A is a ?