UG-CLAT LEGAL REASONING QUIZ 3

A cloak tower fell due to negligence on part of the Municipal Corporation thereby injuring various people. Here, the injured people have the right to ask for a suitable remedy in the law court. This example clears the latin maxim ‘Ubi jus ibi remedium’ which means ‘Wherever there is a right there is a remedy’ or in other words “there is no wrong without a remedy.” For every man who is injured has a right to have recompense. If men will multiply injuries, actions must be multiplied too. It is often said that a wrong which is not a crime, which is not a breach of contract or which is not a breach of trust, is a wrongful tort. 

The word ‘tort’ is derived from the Latin word‘tortum’, meaning‘twist’. An act twisted, crooked, which is not straight and lawful, is tort. Tort is a wrongful act whereby the wrongdoer commits the breach of a legal right vested in some individual. In short, Tort is a civil wrong, but not all civil wrongs are torts. It is given insection 2 of the Limitation Act,1963: Tort is a civil wrong which is not exclusively a breach of contract or breach of trust. A law of Tort is said to be the development of the above maxim “jus” signifies here the “legal authority to do or to demand something” and ‘remedium’ may be defined to be the right of action, or the means given by law, for the recovery or assertion of a right. A tort is a civil wrong for which the remedy is an action for unliquidated damages. Thus, the main remedy for a tort is an action for damages. There are other remedies such as specific restriction and injunction. But, an action for unliquidated damages is an essential characteristic of remedy for tort. It is mainly the right to damages which brings such wrongful acts within the category of torts. 

Torts fall into three general categories: intentional torts (e.g., intentionally hitting a person); negligent torts (e.g., causing an accident by failing to obey traffic rules); and strict liability torts (e.g., liability for making and selling defective products - see Products Liability). Intentional torts are wrongs that the defendant knew or should have known would result through his or her actions or omissions. Negligent torts occur when the defendant's actions were unreasonably unsafe. Unlike intentional and negligent torts, strict liability torts do not depend on the degree of care that the defendant used. Rather, in strict liability cases, courts focus on whether a particular result or harm manifested. There are numerous specific torts including trespass, assault, battery, negligence, products liability, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. There are also separate areas of tort law including nuisance, defamation, invasion of privacy, and a category of economic torts. One cannot bring an action for tort if he suffers damage caused by an act done under the authority of the legislature. When harm results from such an acts, the injured party can claim only such damages or compensation as is provided by the statue.

A cloak tower fell due to negligence on part of the Municipal Corporation thereby injuring various people. Here, the injured people have the right to ask for a suitable remedy in the law court. This example clears the latin maxim ‘Ubi jus ibi remedium’ which means ‘Wherever there is a right there is a remedy’ or in other words “there is no wrong without a remedy.” For every man who is injured has a right to have recompense. If men will multiply injuries, actions must be multiplied too. It is often said that a wrong which is not a crime, which is not a breach of contract or which is not a breach of trust, is a wrongful tort. 

The word ‘tort’ is derived from the Latin word ‘tortum’, meaning ‘twist’. An act twisted, crooked, which is not straight and lawful, is tort. Tort is a wrongful act whereby the wrongdoer commits the breach of a legal right vested in some individual. In short, Tort is a civil wrong, but not all civil wrongs are torts. It is given in section 2 of the Limitation Act, 1963: Tort is a civil wrong which is not exclusively a breach of contract or breach of trust. A law of Tort is said to be the development of the above maxim “jus” signifies here the “legal authority to do or to demand something” and ‘remedium’ may be defined to be the right of action, or the means given by law, for the recovery or assertion of a right. A tort is a civil wrong for which the remedy is an action for unliquidated damages. Thus, the main remedy for a tort is an action for damages. There are other remedies such as specific restriction and injunction. But, an action for unliquidated damages is an essential characteristic of remedy for tort. It is mainly the right to damages which brings such wrongful acts within the category of torts. 

Torts fall into three general categories: intentional torts (e.g., intentionally hitting a person); negligent torts (e.g., causing an accident by failing to obey traffic rules); and strict liability torts (e.g., liability for making and selling defective products - see Products Liability). Intentional torts are wrongs that the defendant knew or should have known would result through his or her actions or omissions. Negligent torts occur when the defendant's actions were unreasonably unsafe. Unlike intentional and negligent torts, strict liability torts do not depend on the degree of care that the defendant used. Rather, in strict liability cases, courts focus on whether a particular result or harm manifested. There are numerous specific torts including trespass, assault, battery, negligence, products liability, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. There are also separate areas of tort law including nuisance, defamation, invasion of privacy, and a category of economic torts. One cannot bring an action for tort if he suffers damage caused by an act done under the authority of the legislature. When harm results from such an acts, the injured party can claim only such damages or compensation as is provided by the statue.

According to the given passage, which of the following statements is not true?

A cloak tower fell due to negligence on part of the Municipal Corporation thereby injuring various people. Here, the injured people have the right to ask for a suitable remedy in the law court. This example clears the latin maxim ‘Ubi jus ibi remedium’ which means ‘Wherever there is a right there is a remedy’ or in other words “there is no wrong without a remedy.” For every man who is injured has a right to have recompense. If men will multiply injuries, actions must be multiplied too. It is often said that a wrong which is not a crime, which is not a breach of contract or which is not a breach of trust, is a wrongful tort. 

The word ‘tort’ is derived from the Latin word ‘tortum’, meaning ‘twist’. An act twisted, crooked, which is not straight and lawful, is tort. Tort is a wrongful act whereby the wrongdoer commits the breach of a legal right vested in some individual. In short, Tort is a civil wrong, but not all civil wrongs are torts. It is given in section 2 of the Limitation Act, 1963: Tort is a civil wrong which is not exclusively a breach of contract or breach of trust. A law of Tort is said to be the development of the above maxim “jus” signifies here the “legal authority to do or to demand something” and ‘remedium’ may be defined to be the right of action, or the means given by law, for the recovery or assertion of a right. A tort is a civil wrong for which the remedy is an action for unliquidated damages. Thus, the main remedy for a tort is an action for damages. There are other remedies such as specific restriction and injunction. But, an action for unliquidated damages is an essential characteristic of remedy for tort. It is mainly the right to damages which brings such wrongful acts within the category of torts. 

Torts fall into three general categories: intentional torts (e.g., intentionally hitting a person); negligent torts (e.g., causing an accident by failing to obey traffic rules); and strict liability torts (e.g., liability for making and selling defective products - see Products Liability). Intentional torts are wrongs that the defendant knew or should have known would result through his or her actions or omissions. Negligent torts occur when the defendant's actions were unreasonably unsafe. Unlike intentional and negligent torts, strict liability torts do not depend on the degree of care that the defendant used. Rather, in strict liability cases, courts focus on whether a particular result or harm manifested. There are numerous specific torts including trespass, assault, battery, negligence, products liability, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. There are also separate areas of tort law including nuisance, defamation, invasion of privacy, and a category of economic torts. One cannot bring an action for tort if he suffers damage caused by an act done under the authority of the legislature. When harm results from such an acts, the injured party can claim only such damages or compensation as is provided by the statue.

Under the Law of torts, the damages are:

A cloak tower fell due to negligence on part of the Municipal Corporation thereby injuring various people. Here, the injured people have the right to ask for a suitable remedy in the law court. This example clears the latin maxim ‘Ubi jus ibi remedium’ which means ‘Wherever there is a right there is a remedy’ or in other words “there is no wrong without a remedy.” For every man who is injured has a right to have recompense. If men will multiply injuries, actions must be multiplied too. It is often said that a wrong which is not a crime, which is not a breach of contract or which is not a breach of trust, is a wrongful tort. 

The word ‘tort’ is derived from the Latin word ‘tortum’, meaning ‘twist’. An act twisted, crooked, which is not straight and lawful, is tort. Tort is a wrongful act whereby the wrongdoer commits the breach of a legal right vested in some individual. In short, Tort is a civil wrong, but not all civil wrongs are torts. It is given in section 2 of the Limitation Act, 1963: Tort is a civil wrong which is not exclusively a breach of contract or breach of trust. A law of Tort is said to be the development of the above maxim “jus” signifies here the “legal authority to do or to demand something” and ‘remedium’ may be defined to be the right of action, or the means given by law, for the recovery or assertion of a right. A tort is a civil wrong for which the remedy is an action for unliquidated damages. Thus, the main remedy for a tort is an action for damages. There are other remedies such as specific restriction and injunction. But, an action for unliquidated damages is an essential characteristic of remedy for tort. It is mainly the right to damages which brings such wrongful acts within the category of torts. 

Torts fall into three general categories: intentional torts (e.g., intentionally hitting a person); negligent torts (e.g., causing an accident by failing to obey traffic rules); and strict liability torts (e.g., liability for making and selling defective products - see Products Liability). Intentional torts are wrongs that the defendant knew or should have known would result through his or her actions or omissions. Negligent torts occur when the defendant's actions were unreasonably unsafe. Unlike intentional and negligent torts, strict liability torts do not depend on the degree of care that the defendant used. Rather, in strict liability cases, courts focus on whether a particular result or harm manifested. There are numerous specific torts including trespass, assault, battery, negligence, products liability, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. There are also separate areas of tort law including nuisance, defamation, invasion of privacy, and a category of economic torts. One cannot bring an action for tort if he suffers damage caused by an act done under the authority of the legislature. When harm results from such an acts, the injured party can claim only such damages or compensation as is provided by the statue.

Which of the following does not occur in general categories of tort?

A cloak tower fell due to negligence on part of the Municipal Corporation thereby injuring various people. Here, the injured people have the right to ask for a suitable remedy in the law court. This example clears the latin maxim ‘Ubi jus ibi remedium’ which means ‘Wherever there is a right there is a remedy’ or in other words “there is no wrong without a remedy.” For every man who is injured has a right to have recompense. If men will multiply injuries, actions must be multiplied too. It is often said that a wrong which is not a crime, which is not a breach of contract or which is not a breach of trust, is a wrongful tort. 

The word ‘tort’ is derived from the Latin word ‘tortum’, meaning ‘twist’. An act twisted, crooked, which is not straight and lawful, is tort. Tort is a wrongful act whereby the wrongdoer commits the breach of a legal right vested in some individual. In short, Tort is a civil wrong, but not all civil wrongs are torts. It is given in section 2 of the Limitation Act, 1963: Tort is a civil wrong which is not exclusively a breach of contract or breach of trust. A law of Tort is said to be the development of the above maxim “jus” signifies here the “legal authority to do or to demand something” and ‘remedium’ may be defined to be the right of action, or the means given by law, for the recovery or assertion of a right. A tort is a civil wrong for which the remedy is an action for unliquidated damages. Thus, the main remedy for a tort is an action for damages. There are other remedies such as specific restriction and injunction. But, an action for unliquidated damages is an essential characteristic of remedy for tort. It is mainly the right to damages which brings such wrongful acts within the category of torts. 

Torts fall into three general categories: intentional torts (e.g., intentionally hitting a person); negligent torts (e.g., causing an accident by failing to obey traffic rules); and strict liability torts (e.g., liability for making and selling defective products - see Products Liability). Intentional torts are wrongs that the defendant knew or should have known would result through his or her actions or omissions. Negligent torts occur when the defendant's actions were unreasonably unsafe. Unlike intentional and negligent torts, strict liability torts do not depend on the degree of care that the defendant used. Rather, in strict liability cases, courts focus on whether a particular result or harm manifested. There are numerous specific torts including trespass, assault, battery, negligence, products liability, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. There are also separate areas of tort law including nuisance, defamation, invasion of privacy, and a category of economic torts. One cannot bring an action for tort if he suffers damage caused by an act done under the authority of the legislature. When harm results from such an acts, the injured party can claim only such damages or compensation as is provided by the statue.

Running of the train using coal or fuel oil inevitably causes the discharge of smoke and causes noise and vibrations, resulting in some harm or injury to human beings and land. Can any actions be brought for the damage caused by the construction of railway lines and the running of trains, if there had been no negligence in doing such acts?

A confession is a statement made by an accused person which is sought to be proved against him in criminal proceeding to establish the commission of an offence by him. The expression ‘confession’ has not been defined in the Evidence Act. According to Stephens-“A confession is an admission made at any time by a person charged with crime, stating or suggesting the inference that he committed the crime”. In Pakla Narayana Swamy v Emperor, the Privy Council observed: A confession is a statement which either admits in terms the offence or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the offence. An admission of a gravely incriminating fact is not of itself a confession. Confession made by one or two or more accused jointly tried for the same offence can be taken into consideration against the co-accused. For example: A and B are jointly tried for the murder of C. It is proved that A said.- “B and I murdered C.”  The Court may consider the effect of this confession as against B. In other words, confession is a statement written or oral which is a direct admission of suit. (According to the section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, an ‘admission’ is a statement, oral or documentary, which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the circumstances hereinafter mentioned. An admission usually relates to civil transaction.) Most of the confessions are obtained by torture or unlawful pressure or brain-washing methods. Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act absolutely excludes from evidence against the accused a confession made by him to a police officer under any circumstances. In ‘Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam AIR 2011 SC 957’ case, it was held that confession made to police officer is a very weak kind of evidence, hence Court have to be very careful in accepting those confessions which are made to police officers. Section 26 goes further and enacts that no confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person. In Selvi v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2010 SC 1974 case, it was held that if a statement is made in police custody, then it is said to be credible unless it subjected to judicial scrutiny or cross-examination.

Under which section of Evidence Act, a confession made to a police officer is not admissible?

A confession is a statement made by an accused person which is sought to be proved against him in criminal proceeding to establish the commission of an offence by him. The expression ‘confession’ has not been defined in the Evidence Act. According to Stephens-“A confession is an admission made at any time by a person charged with crime, stating or suggesting the inference that he committed the crime”. In Pakla Narayana Swamy v Emperor, the Privy Council observed: A confession is a statement which either admits in terms the offence or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the offence. An admission of a gravely incriminating fact is not of itself a confession. Confession made by one or two or more accused jointly tried for the same offence can be taken into consideration against the co-accused. For example: A and B are jointly tried for the murder of C. It is proved that A said.- “B and I murdered C.”  The Court may consider the effect of this confession as against B. In other words, confession is a statement written or oral which is a direct admission of suit. (According to the section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, an ‘admission’ is a statement, oral or documentary, which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the circumstances hereinafter mentioned. An admission usually relates to civil transaction.) Most of the confessions are obtained by torture or unlawful pressure or brain-washing methods. Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act absolutely excludes from evidence against the accused a confession made by him to a police officer under any circumstances. In ‘Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam AIR 2011 SC 957’ case, it was held that confession made to police officer is a very weak kind of evidence, hence Court have to be very careful in accepting those confessions which are made to police officers. Section 26 goes further and enacts that no confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person. In Selvi v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2010 SC 1974 case, it was held that if a statement is made in police custody, then it is said to be credible unless it subjected to judicial scrutiny or cross-examination.

A confession made while in police custody is admissible under section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

A confession is a statement made by an accused person which is sought to be proved against him in criminal proceeding to establish the commission of an offence by him. The expression ‘confession’ has not been defined in the Evidence Act. According to Stephens-“A confession is an admission made at any time by a person charged with crime, stating or suggesting the inference that he committed the crime”. In Pakla Narayana Swamy v Emperor, the Privy Council observed: A confession is a statement which either admits in terms the offence or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the offence. An admission of a gravely incriminating fact is not of itself a confession. Confession made by one or two or more accused jointly tried for the same offence can be taken into consideration against the co-accused. For example: A and B are jointly tried for the murder of C. It is proved that A said.- “B and I murdered C.”  The Court may consider the effect of this confession as against B. In other words, confession is a statement written or oral which is a direct admission of suit. (According to the section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, an ‘admission’ is a statement, oral or documentary, which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the circumstances hereinafter mentioned. An admission usually relates to civil transaction.) Most of the confessions are obtained by torture or unlawful pressure or brain-washing methods. Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act absolutely excludes from evidence against the accused a confession made by him to a police officer under any circumstances. In ‘Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam AIR 2011 SC 957’ case, it was held that confession made to police officer is a very weak kind of evidence, hence Court have to be very careful in accepting those confessions which are made to police officers. Section 26 goes further and enacts that no confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person. In Selvi v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2010 SC 1974 case, it was held that if a statement is made in police custody, then it is said to be credible unless it subjected to judicial scrutiny or cross-examination.

According to the given passage, which of the following statements is true?

A confession is a statement made by an accused person which is sought to be proved against him in criminal proceeding to establish the commission of an offence by him. The expression ‘confession’ has not been defined in the Evidence Act. According to Stephens-“A confession is an admission made at any time by a person charged with crime, stating or suggesting the inference that he committed the crime”. In Pakla Narayana Swamy v Emperor, the Privy Council observed: A confession is a statement which either admits in terms the offence or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the offence. An admission of a gravely incriminating fact is not of itself a confession. Confession made by one or two or more accused jointly tried for the same offence can be taken into consideration against the co-accused. For example: A and B are jointly tried for the murder of C. It is proved that A said.- “B and I murdered C.”  The Court may consider the effect of this confession as against B. In other words, confession is a statement written or oral which is a direct admission of suit. (According to the section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, an ‘admission’ is a statement, oral or documentary, which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the circumstances hereinafter mentioned. An admission usually relates to civil transaction.) Most of the confessions are obtained by torture or unlawful pressure or brain-washing methods. Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act absolutely excludes from evidence against the accused a confession made by him to a police officer under any circumstances. In ‘Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam AIR 2011 SC 957’ case, it was held that confession made to police officer is a very weak kind of evidence, hence Court have to be very careful in accepting those confessions which are made to police officers. Section 26 goes further and enacts that no confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person. In Selvi v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2010 SC 1974 case, it was held that if a statement is made in police custody, then it is said to be credible unless it subjected to judicial scrutiny or cross-examination.

Confession of one or two or more accused can be taken into consideration against the co-accused

A confession is a statement made by an accused person which is sought to be proved against him in criminal proceeding to establish the commission of an offence by him. The expression ‘confession’ has not been defined in the Evidence Act. According to Stephens-“A confession is an admission made at any time by a person charged with crime, stating or suggesting the inference that he committed the crime”. In Pakla Narayana Swamy v Emperor, the Privy Council observed: A confession is a statement which either admits in terms the offence or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the offence. An admission of a gravely incriminating fact is not of itself a confession. Confession made by one or two or more accused jointly tried for the same offence can be taken into consideration against the co-accused. For example: A and B are jointly tried for the murder of C. It is proved that A said.- “B and I murdered C.”  The Court may consider the effect of this confession as against B. In other words, confession is a statement written or oral which is a direct admission of suit. (According to the section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, an ‘admission’ is a statement, oral or documentary, which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the circumstances hereinafter mentioned. An admission usually relates to civil transaction.) Most of the confessions are obtained by torture or unlawful pressure or brain-washing methods. Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act absolutely excludes from evidence against the accused a confession made by him to a police officer under any circumstances. In ‘Arup Bhuyan v. State of Assam AIR 2011 SC 957’ case, it was held that confession made to police officer is a very weak kind of evidence, hence Court have to be very careful in accepting those confessions which are made to police officers. Section 26 goes further and enacts that no confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person. In Selvi v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2010 SC 1974 case, it was held that if a statement is made in police custody, then it is said to be credible unless it subjected to judicial scrutiny or cross-examination.

An admission relates to…