Question

What are the instances, where the defendant is liable for not committing any wrong?

• A. Strict liability
• B. Vicarious liability
• C. Liability of State
• D. Tort of Negligence
• A. Master is liable for the acts committed by his servant within the course of employment
• B. Master is liable for the acts committed by his agent outside the course of employment doing authorised act
• C. Master is liable for the acts committed by his agent within the course of employment doing unauthorised act
• D. Master is not at all held liable for the act of his servant
• A. Actual Loss is essential to not award damages in Tort.
• B. Actual Loss is essential to award damages in Tort.
• C. Legal damage is not essential to award damages in Tort.
• D. Legal damage is essential to award damages in Tort.
• A. Breach of Contract
• B. Breach of Trust
• C. Criminal Wrong
• D. Civil Wrong
• A. Right to freedom
• B. Right to person’s bodily safety
• C. Right to damage
• D. Right of reputation

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

In the realm of tort law, strict liability refers to a situation where the defendant is held liable for committing a tort, even though there is no intent or negligence on their part. This liability occurs when an act causes harm without justification, even if the harm occurred unintentionally or without fault. Strict liability applies to certain types of civil wrongs, where the law imposes liability regardless of the defendant’s mental state or fault. This is contrasted with vicarious liability, which involves holding an employer responsible for the torts committed by an employee during the course of their employment. The liability of the State and torts of negligence do not directly concern the defendant being held liable without committing any wrongful act themselves.

Answer 2

Understanding the Concept:
In the law of torts, liability generally arises when one person (the defendant) commits a wrongful act or omission that causes harm to another (the plaintiff). Typically, for liability to be established, the defendant must be shown to have been negligent or intentional in causing the harm.

Exception: Liability Without Fault
However, there are exceptional circumstances where the law imposes liability on the defendant even if he has not committed any wrongful act intentionally or negligently. This is referred to as liability without fault.

Strict Liability:
Strict liability is a legal doctrine under which a defendant is held responsible for the consequences of an activity even in the absence of fault or intent. This concept was famously established in the case of *Rylands v. Fletcher* (1868), where the defendant was held liable for damage caused by the escape of water from his land, even though he was not negligent.
In such cases, the plaintiff need not prove any negligence or wrongful intent on the part of the defendant. The mere occurrence of damage from a hazardous activity or condition maintained by the defendant is sufficient.

Examples of Strict Liability:
- Harm caused by keeping dangerous animals
- Damage due to escape of toxic chemicals
- Injuries caused by use of explosives or dangerous industrial activities

Conclusion:
The instance where a defendant is held liable without committing any intentional or negligent wrong is known as strict liability. It serves to protect the public from activities that, while lawful, carry inherent risks.

Correct Answer:
Strict liability

Answer 3

Vicarious liability refers to a situation where one person (the master or employer) is held liable for the actions of another (the servant or employee) when those actions are performed during the course of employment. In such cases, the master is responsible for acts done by the servant if they occur within the scope of employment. However, the master is typically not liable for acts committed outside of the scope of employment, even if they are authorized, unless the act was inherently wrongful. In other words, vicarious liability does not apply when the servant acts outside the boundaries of employment, unless the master's own negligence contributed to the situation. Therefore, option 2 (1, 2, 3) is correct.

Answer 4

Concept of Vicarious Liability:
Vicarious liability is a legal principle where one person is held liable for the wrongful acts committed by another. This usually arises in a master-servant or employer-employee relationship. The underlying idea is that a person who employs another to do something on their behalf may be held responsible for the harm caused by that person’s acts, provided those acts are within the scope of employment.

Scope of Employment:
An act is considered to be within the course of employment if it is:
(i) A wrongful act that is explicitly authorized by the master/employer, or
(ii) A wrongful or unauthorized manner of performing an act that was authorized by the master/employer.
Thus, even when the mode of performance deviates from the original instruction, if the act is related to what was authorized, liability may still be imposed on the master.

Application to the Given Statement:
The statement in question is:
Master is liable for the acts committed by his agent outside the course of employment doing authorised act.
This is a nuanced but correct interpretation under vicarious liability. Even when the agent acts outside the strict course of employment, if the act performed is one that was authorized — even if in an unauthorized manner — the master can be held liable. This is because the nature of the act remains within the realm of the authorized duty.

Legal Reasoning:
The law recognizes that the employer has control over the activities of their agents and must bear the risk of wrongful acts done in connection to authorized duties. This ensures better protection for the victim and encourages employers to supervise their agents responsibly.

Conclusion:
The statement is correct with respect to the principle of vicarious liability. Liability may still attach to the master even when the act was performed in an unauthorized way, as long as it was related to an authorized task.

Correct Answer:
Master is liable for the acts committed by his agent outside the course of employment doing authorised act

Answer 5

In tort law, the award of damages is primarily based on the legal damage suffered by the plaintiff due to the defendant's wrongful act. Legal damage refers to harm or loss that has been legally recognized and is necessary for the plaintiff to seek compensation. Actual loss, though often present, is not always necessary for tort damages, especially if there has been an infringement of rights. Therefore, legal damage is essential for awarding damages in tort. Thus, the correct answer is option (4).

Answer 6

Understanding the Concept of Legal Damage in Tort:
In the law of torts, a person is entitled to a legal remedy when their legal rights are violated. However, the violation must result in what is recognized as "legal damage" by the courts. This does not necessarily mean actual physical or monetary harm — even the infringement of a legal right without tangible loss may be actionable.

Meaning of Legal Damage:
Legal damage refers to harm that is recognized by law as being sufficient to warrant a legal remedy. The famous principle in tort law — "Injuria sine damno" — explains this: it means "legal injury without actual damage".
In such cases, a plaintiff may still succeed in court if they can show their legal rights were violated, even if no actual damage was suffered.

Importance in Tort Law:
The passage clearly states: "It is not every damage that is a damage in the eye of law. It must be a damage which the law recognizes as such."
This underlines the importance of **legal damage** over **mere actual damage**. For example, if someone trespasses onto another’s property without causing any physical harm, this still constitutes legal damage — the right to exclusive possession has been violated.

Correct Statement:
Legal damage is essential to award damages in Tort.
This is TRUE because the law distinguishes between actual harm and harm that qualifies as a violation of legal rights, and only the latter can lead to successful tort claims.

Conclusion:
The presence of legal damage is a necessary condition to claim damages in tort law. A wrongful act must infringe a legally protected interest to be actionable, even if it doesn’t cause a measurable or visible loss.

Answer 7

Tort is a civil wrong and differs from breach of contract, breach of trust, and criminal wrongs. A breach of contract is a violation of the terms of an agreement between parties. Breach of trust refers to a situation where a trustee fails to act according to the terms of the trust. Criminal wrongs are violations of criminal law, whereas tort is a civil law issue. Thus, tort is not classified under "Breach of Contract," "Breach of Trust," or "Criminal Wrong." The correct answer is option (1).

Answer 8

Understanding the Nature of Tort:
The word "tort" originates from the French word meaning "wrong" and is derived from the Latin term "tortum," meaning twisted or crooked. In legal terms, tort refers to a civil wrong — a wrongful act or omission which causes harm to another person and for which the law provides a remedy in the form of damages or other civil relief.

Distinction Between Tort and Other Wrongs:
Tort law is distinct from both criminal law and contract law. While criminal law involves offenses against the state, and contract law deals with breaches of agreements between parties, tort law specifically addresses wrongful acts that infringe on individual rights such as reputation, personal safety, freedom, or property.

Why Tort is Not a Breach of Contract:
The passage clearly states: "Tort means a civil wrong which is not exclusively the breach of a contract or the breach of trust."
This means that although tort, contract, and trust all fall under civil law, they have different legal grounds and remedies.
A breach of contract arises from the failure to fulfill agreed terms in a legally binding agreement, while a tort arises from duties imposed by law rather than by mutual agreement.

Correct Statement:
Tort is not a Breach of Contract
This is the correct answer because a tort does not arise from contractual obligations. It arises from the violation of legal duties that are generally applicable to all citizens, such as the duty not to cause harm to others.

Conclusion:
Tort is a civil wrong distinct from both criminal wrongs and contractual breaches. Therefore, tort is not a breach of contract, and the legal principles that govern tortious liability are separate from those in contract law.

Answer 9

The passage refers to certain legal rights such as the right to freedom, the right to personal safety, the right to damage, and the right to reputation. However, the most emphasized legal right in the passage is the right of reputation. This is typically regarded as a protected legal right under tort law, particularly in defamation cases. Thus, the correct answer is option (4), focusing on the right to reputation.

Answer 10

Understanding Legal Rights in the Context of Tort Law:
Tort law is primarily concerned with protecting the legal rights of individuals from unjust harm. As per the given passage, tort arises when a person's legal rights are violated without lawful justification, even if actual harm is not visible or tangible.

Definition and Scope of Legal Rights in the Passage:
The passage states:
"Every person whose legal rights, e.g., right of reputation, right of bodily safety and freedom, and right to property are violated without legal excuse, has a right of action against the person who violated them..."
From this, we can clearly infer that the following are recognized as **legal rights** under tort law:
1. Right of reputation
2. Right of bodily safety and freedom
3. Right to property

Focus on the Correct Answer:
Among the choices, the **Right of reputation** is explicitly mentioned in the passage as a legal right. It is considered a protected interest under tort law, particularly in cases of defamation (libel and slander), where a person's reputation is harmed by false and malicious statements.

Conclusion:
The correct answer is:
Right of reputation
This is a recognized legal right under tort law, and its violation without lawful excuse can give rise to a tortious claim.