If you want to score high in Legal Reasoning, you must master the most common and predictable topic: Law of Torts. Every year, CLAT asks multiple principle-based questions on negligence, vicarious liability, nuisance, defamation, and strict or absolute liability.
To help you prepare effectively, we’ve compiled the top Law of Torts questions based on the latest CLAT exam pattern.
The CLAT 2027 law of torts practice questions included in this guide are designed to strengthen your concept clarity, improve your application skills, and help you avoid the common mistakes students make while solving legal reasoning questions.
Upcoming CLAT Exams:
What is Law of Torts in CLAT?
In CLAT, Law of Torts is tested through principle–fact application questions. You are given a legal principle and a short factual situation. Your task is to decide how the principle applies to the facts – nothing more, nothing less.
CLAT does NOT test theoretical definitions or sections; it only checks your ability to reason logically using the given rule.
Topics like negligence, nuisance, strict liability, vicarious liability, trespass, and defamation appear frequently because they allow the Consortium to frame easy-to-understand but tricky factual scenarios. If you understand how to apply principles accurately, torts becomes the most scoring part of the CLAT Legal Reasoning section.
📥 Download Law of Torts Questions for CLAT 2027 (Free PDF)
Get the complete Torts question PDF for CLAT 2027 and practice exam-focused questions with clear explanations to strengthen your Legal Reasoning preparation.
Law of Torts Questions for CLAT Exam
Definition of Torts: The term tort is the French equivalent of the English word ‘wrong’ and of the Roman law term ‘delict’. The word tort is derived from the Latin word ‘Tortum’ which means twisted or crooked or wrong and is in contrast to the word rectum which means straight. Everyone is expected to behave in a straightforward manner and when one deviates from this straight path into crooked ways, he has committed a tort. Hence tort is a conduct which is twisted or crooked and not straight. As a technical term of English law, tort has acquired a special meaning as a species of civil injury or wrong. It was introduced into English law by the Norman jurists.
Tort now means a breach of some duty independent of contract giving rise to a civil cause of action and for which compensation is recoverable. In spite of various attempts an entirely satisfactory definition of tort still awaits its master. In general terms, a tort may be defined as a civil wrong independent of contract for which the appropriate remedy is an action for unliquidated damages.
Every tort is an act or omission (not being merely the breach of a duty arising out of a personal relation, or undertaken by contract) which is related in one of the following ways to harm (including reference with an absolute right, whether there be measurable actual damage or not), suffered by a determinate person:-
A. It may be an act which, without lawful justification or excuse, is intended by the agent to cause harm, and does cause the harm complained of.
B. It may be an act in itself contrary to law, or an omission of specific legal duty, which causes harm not intended by the person so acting or omitting.
C. It may be an act violating the absolute right (especially rights of possession or property), and treated as wrongful without regard to the actor’s intention or knowledge. This, as we have seen, is an artificial extension of the general conceptions which are common to English and Roman law.
D. It may be an act or omission causing harm which the person so acting or omitting to act did not intend to cause, but might and should with due diligence have foreseen and prevented.
E. It may, in special cases, consist merely in not avoiding or preventing harm which the party was bound absolutely or within limits, to avoid or prevent.
Question 01:
Yash once went to a park to run. After running for some time, he got tired and sat on a bench to get some rest and sunlight. While resting, he laid down on the bench and while occupying the whole bench, slept. While sleeping, a construction began around the park causing noise and disturbing his sleep. He was annoyed by it and decided to file a case of tort against the construction workers for disturbing his sleep and infringing his right. Will he be able to file a case?
(a) Yes, his absolute right was disturbed.
(b) Yes, the construction woke him without any reason.
(c) No, his right was not violated.
(d) No, the harm couldn’t have been foreseen.
Question 02:
Yash once went to a park to run. After running for some time, he got tired and sat on a bench to get some rest and sunlight. While resting, he laid down on the bench and while occupying the whole bench slept. While sleeping, he was disturbed by a girl who wanted to sit on the bench as well. The girl shook him to wake him. Annoyed by her act, he tried to file a case of tort against her for disturbing his sleep. Will he be able to file a case of tort?
(a) Yes, his absolute right was disturbed.
(b) Yes, the girl woke him without any reason.
(c) No, his right was not violated.
(d) No, the harm could have been foreseen.
Question 03:
Yash recently bought a house on the outskirts of the city. He specifically made it with a garden so that he can enjoy the greenery. One day, he decided to sleep in the garden. While he was sleeping, construction began around the park causing noise and disturbing his sleep. He was annoyed by it and decided to file a case of tort against the construction workers for disturbing his sleep and infringing his right. Will he be able to file a case?
(a) Yes, his absolute right was disturbed.
(b) Yes, the construction woke him without any reason.
(c) No, his right was not violated.
(d) No, the harm couldn’t have been foreseen.
Question 04:
The government wanted to lay down an underground sewage system in the city of Juxtia. They hired a private company to do it for them. To lay down the sewage system, they started digging all over the place. While digging, they were supposed to enclose the area and if they are leaving the holes open, then they should place hoardings around it warning people. One day, one of the workers forgot to put the hoarding before leaving and it resulted in Yash falling down in the hole. He later filed a case of tort against the workers and the company. Will they be liable?
(a) Yes, they were not maintaining the holes appropriately.
(b) Yes, they forgot to put the hoardings warning him about the hole.
(c) No, they didn’t intend to harm Yash.
(d) No, they were properly maintaining the holes.
Question 05:
Suppose in the above question, the workers did put the hoarding and still Yash fell in the hole. Now, if Yash files a case against them under tort. Will they be liable?
(a) Yes, they were not maintaining the holes appropriately.
(b) Yes, they should have closed the holes.
(c) No, they didn’t intend to harm Yash.
(d) No, they appropriately tried to prevent the harm.
Elements of Torts: A tort can be defined as a wrong independent of contract, giving rise to a civil remedy, for which compensation can be recovered. The essential elements of torts are as follows:
- Wrongful Act – When a person is under some legal duty, and he fails to perform it causing some loss to the victim, the person has committed a wrongful act. A wrongful act invades the following private rights of the victim: Good Reputation, Bodily safety and Legal rights.
- Legal Damage – There is a difference between legal damage and actual damage. In torts, injuria sine damnum is actionable, but damnum sine injuria isn’t. Injuria sine damnum means an infringement of a legal right even if there is no actual damage. Damnum sine injuria means damage without injury. In Ashby v. White, the plaintiff was prevented from exercising her right to vote. It was held that the plaintiff was entitled to damages. In the Gloucester Grammar School Case, a rival school was set up near that of the plaintiff. It was held that the plaintiff could not get compensation as there was no legal injury.
- Legal Remedy – The damage in tort should be actionable. There cannot be a tort if there is no legal remedy.
There should be a wrongful act in order to constitute tort. It can be an act of omission or that of commission. A fault which violates the right of a person gives rise to tort. They should not be beyond human control. The wrongful act can be voluntary or involuntary. Further, the act may have an intention or motive or may arise due to negligence or recklessness.
Also, malice isn’t essential in all kinds of torts. It is essential in the following kinds of torts – defamation, malicious prosecution, malicious damage to property, slander, etc. Malfeasance means commission of an unlawful act. Misfeasance means performing a lawful act in a wrong manner. Nonfeasance means failure to perform an act where there was an obligation to perform it.
Question 06:
Mudit is a police officer who was assigned the duty to arrest Ayukt for committing a crime. When Mudit reached Ayukt’s home, Ayukt was partying with his friends. Mudit entered his house without his permission and tried to arrest him but Ayukt refused to come with him. Mudit put him in handcuffs and dragged him out. Because of this, Ayukt got some injuries. He filed a case of tort against Mudit for causing him harm. Will Mudit be liable?
(a) Yes, he caused injury to Ayukt.
(b) Yes, he invaded the private rights of Ayukt.
(c) No, he didn’t have any malice.
(d) No, he was assigned to arrest him.
Question 07:
Ayukt was once invited to a luxurious hotel to attend a party held by one of his friends. As Ayukt was not very financially stable he didn’t wear a tuxedo for the party. When he reached the hotel, the guards of the hotel didn’t allow him to attend the party as they thought that he was not properly dressed and thus couldn’t have been invited for the party. Ayukt, considering it as an insult and an injury to his reputation, filed a case against the guards. Will the guards be liable under torts?
(a) Yes, they injured Ayukt’s reputation.
(b) Yes, they wrongfully stopped Ayukt from entering into the party.
(c) No, they have the absolute right to stop people from entering into the property.
(d) No, Ayukt didn’t face any injury.
Question 08:
Mudit is a newspaper journalist who once posted a news article about Ayukt that he is a corrupt official who takes money from businessmen to pass their tenders. Mudit was provided this information by one of his informants and believing him, he posted that story. Later on, it was found that the information was false and Ayukt was innocent. Ayukt filed a case against Mudit for defaming him. Will Mudit be liable?
(a) Yes, he caused injury to Ayukt.
(b) Yes, he printed false information about him.
(c) No, he didn’t have any malicious intent.
(d) No, he didn’t intend to print false information.
Question 09:
Suppose in the above question, Mudit knew that Ayukt was innocent before he printed the news, but he still published it. Will Mudit be liable in this case?
(a) Yes, he caused injury to Ayukt.
(b) Yes, he maliciously printed false information about him.
(c) No, he didn’t have any malicious intent.
(d) No, he is a journalist and only did his duty.
Question 10:
Mudit lives in Juxtia and has built a water tanker in his home to fulfill his domestic purposes. One day, heavy rainfall fell in the city which led to the tanker in Mudit’s house overflowing which in turn led to the tanker developing major cracks which further led to the water leaking out from his home into his neighbor’s home. His neighbor suffered because of it and later filed a case of tort against him. Will Mudit be liable?
(a) Yes, he caused injury to his neighbor.
(b) Yes, he didn’t take proper precautions.
(c) No, the tanker was built for his domestic use.
(d) No, the heavy rain was the reason behind the injury.
Important resources to explore after the CLAT Exam:
Legal Damage in Torts: It is to be kept in mind that ‘Damages’ is not the plural of ‘Damage’ rather both of them denote two separate meanings legally. ‘Damage’ literally means to affect injuriously whereas ‘damages’ on the other hand refers to compensation.
The two factual importance of Legal Damage is being given by two maxims. They are Injuria Sine Damno and Damno Sine Injuria.
Injuria Sine Damno – This maxim portrays an injury without damage. Such a damage is applicable under the law of torts. This maxim occurs when a person goes through legal damage instead of actual loss. In short, when his legal right is infringed by some other individual. This is a transgression of an absolute right of a person without having suffered from actual loss.
A mind-blowing example of this maxim can be the landmark case of, Ashby v. White (1703) 92 ER 126, where Mr Ashby, the plaintiff, was refrained from voting by Mr White, the constable. This rule is basically based on the old maxim “Ubi jus ibi remedium” which translates to “where there is a right, there will be a remedy.” In an Indian case of Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, the plaintiff was a member of the parliament (MP), and was not accorded to enter into the premises of the Assembly election by a police constable. Hence, his legal rights are infringed.
Damnum Sine Injuria – This maxim is just the opposite of the former one. It denotes damage without injury. Here, the party suffers from actual loss which may be physical or moral but no transgression of their legal rights takes place. In layman’s terms, the happening of an actual and substantial loss to a party without any transgression of a legal right. No action lies on the plaintiff’s end in this case for no legal rights are being transgressed here.
Question 11:
Harsh and Utkarsh are classmates who usually play pranks on each other. One day, Harsh planned to pull Utkarsh’s chair while he was sitting on it to make him fall and hurt himself. Harsh executed the plan as well which led to Utkarsh falling and hurting himself. Utkarsh was admitted into the hospital and it was found that he had a fracture. Annoyed by this, Utkarsh decided to file a case of tort against him. Will Harsh be liable in this case?
(a) Yes, Utkarsh was hurt severely because of him.
(b) Yes, Utkarsh’s right to his body was hampered.
(c) No, he didn’t injure Utkarsh directly.
(d) No, no legal right of Utkarsh was damaged.
Question 12:
Harsh was once playing cricket in a park with his friends. While Harsh was batting, he hit the ball and it landed on Utkarsh’s garden. As he was the one who hit the ball, it was decided that he would sneak into his house and get the ball. He sneaked in and got the ball but while doing so, he was spotted by Utkarsh. Utkarsh filed a case of tort against him for invading his property. Will Harsh be liable in this case?
(a) Yes, he trespassed into his property.
(b) Yes, he damaged his property.
(c) No, he didn’t damage his property.
(d) No, he only invaded his property to get the ball.
Question 13:
In the city of Juxtia, a circus has recently started. Harsh, excited about seeing this, bought the tickets beforehand. Later, the main star of the show and the magician caught a very high fever and were admitted to the hospital. The circus administrators thought that instead of showing the incomplete circus, it would be better to shut down the circus. Harsh, devoid of the opportunity to see the circus and his loss of money, decided to file a case against the circus. Will the circus be liable?
(a) Yes, Harsh was not able to see the circus he bought the ticket for.
(b) Yes, the money Harsh spent for the tickets is now worthless.
(c) No, the performers of the circus were sick.
(d) No, the circus is shut down before the show.
Question 14:
Suppose in the above question, the circus compensates everyone for the tickets. Still, Harsh, feeling that he is devoid of the opportunity to see the circus, files a case against the circus under tort. Will the circus be liable?
(a) Yes, Harsh was not able to see the circus he bought the ticket for.
(b) No, he was compensated for the cost of the tickets.
(c) No, the performers of the circus were sick.
(d) No, the circus is shut down before the show.
Question 15:
Harsh and Utkarsh are really good friends. On Utkarsh’s birthday, Harsh decided to order his favorite chocolate cake to celebrate his birthday. He threw him a party in his home with some of their other friends. But, when he opened the package of the cake, it was found out that instead of chocolate cake, pineapple cake had been delivered to them. Harsh informed this to the bakery and the bakery compensated him. Harsh also filed a case under tort. Will the bakery be liable under tort?
(a) Yes, they delivered the wrong cake.
(b) Yes, they ruined the birthday party.
(c) No, they compensated Harsh.
(d) No, they delivered the cake.
Strict liability: The liability of strict liability is fixed on a person using his/her premises for non-natural purpose and causing damages or losses from it. This comes under tort law where the plaintiff, the one who is filing the case, has to prove that the accused was at fault for the injuries caused to him and therefore has to pay for the same. There are certain exceptions to this rule. The thing kept on the premises is inherently dangerous due to the place or its nature. A person is held responsible for the consequences of his negligent act for the activities that are fundamentally dangerous. If any person keeps anything dangerous on his land, which is likely to cause damage, and if that thing escapes that person is held liable to pay for the damages. It is immaterial even if there is no negligence of the owner, if anything hazardous escapes, the person from whose property it escapes is imposed with the punishment to pay compensation for the same. This principle of strict liability first came in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher in which a person brought reservoir on his land and due to some accident water leaked and flooded the coal mines of the person living in the neighborhood. The owner of the cold mines filed a suit. The court held that the person brought the reservoir at his own risk and storing water in such a huge quantity is dangerous in itself and if something happens then the defendant will be liable for the accident and escape of the material.
The essentials of strict liability are:
- Hazardous or Dangerous substance: The substance will be regarded as dangerous if on escape it can cause some mischief or harm to anyone. Even ordinary things that if on leaving the premises can cause damage are dangerous.
- Escape: It is important to fix strict liability that the thing must be out of the premises and control of the defendant. E.g.: If a person has a poisonous plant on his premises and it is reaching out to another person’s land, the defendant cannot take the defense that the plant is originally on his land and only the branches are on others land. This will be regarded as escape and if someone consumes those poisonous leaves, the defendant in that case can be held liable.
- Non-natural use: To constitute strict liability it is necessary the dangerous thing kept on the premises is used for non-natural purpose. The storage of water in huge quantities for the energizing mill is a non-natural use of water and therefore the defendant was held liable in Ryland’s case.
- These three conditions need to be satisfied simultaneously to fix strict liability in any case.
Question 16:
Rajiv is an avid gardener and has a huge garden where he has planted multiple herbs and flowers. To water these plants, he also installed a huge water reservoir in his garden. One day, due to heavy rainfall, the nearby river flooded and the water from the river reached the tank’s metal base and rusted it causing it to pave and break which led to the water from the tanks escaping into the neighbor’s garden and destroying his plants. Will Rajiv be strictly liable in this case?
(a) Yes, the water escaped from his tank and injured his neighbor.
(b) Yes, there was a non-natural use of land.
(c) No, Rajiv didn’t take necessary precautions.
(d) No, there was no non-natural use of land.
Question 17:
Suppose in the above question, Rajiv took all necessary precautions so that the tank may not break in ordinary circumstances and harm anyone. But the rain was too severe that day which resulted in the tank breaking and injuring his neighbor. Will Rajiv be liable in this case?
(a) Yes, the water escaped from his tank and injured his neighbor.
(b) Yes, there was a non-natural use of land.
(c) No, water is not a dangerous substance.
(d) No, there was no non-natural use of land.
Question 18:
Rajiv owns a hotel which is known for its luxurious rooms and extraordinary nature inspired decoration. The hotel had all kinds of plants domestic and foreign, agricultural and decorative, safe and poisonous. The responsibility for taking care of these plants was given to a gardener. One day, while working on the plants, and cutting the branches from outside the compound, he was accidentally stung by one of the poisonous plants which made him extremely ill and he was admitted to the hospital. Will the Hotel be strictly liable in this case?
(a) Yes, the plants were poisonous in nature.
(b) Yes, it harmed the gardener.
(c) Yes, the gardener was injured outside the hotel.
(d) No, the gardener was responsible for taking care of the plants.
Question 19:
Rajiv owns a hotel which is known for its luxurious rooms and extraordinary nature inspired decoration. The hotel had all kinds of plants domestic and foreign, agricultural and decorative, safe and poisonous. The responsibility for taking care of these plants was given to a gardener. One day, the gardener trimmed the branches of the poisonous plants and gave them to the garbage disposal team who negligently dumped it into the nearby village. Many people came into contact with the branches and got infected. Will the hotel be strictly liable in this case?
(a) Yes, the hotel planted poisonous plants in its premises.
(b) Yes, people were infected from the branches of the plant planted in the hotel.
(c) No, the hotel disposed of the branches.
(d) No, there was no non-natural use of land.
Question 20:
Rajiv has recently bought a house and was making plans to get an electric system installed. He was recently informed that a company is offering an underground electric network which will be safe from many types of natural problems like heavy rainfall, storms, etc. He was tempted by the idea and contacted the company and had them install the electronic network. Later, one of the underground wires which was providing electricity to Rajiv’s house was damaged which resulted in the electricity escaping his premises and injuring his neighbor. Will Rajiv be strictly liable in this case?
(a) Yes, electricity was a dangerous substance which escaped his premises.
(b) Yes, he didn’t take proper care of the wires.
(c) No, electricity was used to power his house.
(d) No, the company was negligent in installing the wires.
Absolute Liability: While finding its origin, we see that Justice Blackstone was the first to coin the term “absolute liability.” However, in England, strict liability was favoured over absolute liability. In India, tort law is largely based on English tort law, and so, India adopted the strict liability rule from the English case of Ryland v. Fletcher. After its use for a long time, when P.N. Bhagwati analysed the case of Ryland v. Fletcher in deciding the ‘Oleum gas leak’ case, it resulted in the invocation of exemplary damages through the establishment of absolute liability.
The primary reason for its establishment overtime was the inadequacy of strict liability. In essence, absolute liability can be defined as strict liability without exceptions. There are certain exceptions to the principle of strict liability, like, Act of God, consent of the opposing party, statutory authority, the act of third party and the opposing party’s negligence. Therefore, in order to establish a non-exhaustive liability for businesses dealing with hazardous substances, absolute liability was established in India. That is, to avoid liability for the devastation caused by hazardous industries developed in and around densely populated areas, they invoked an exception to the strict liability rule.
While in case of strict liability, three conditions: non-natural use of land, dangerous thing and its escape, need to be met. However, in absolute liability, the rule applies when the use of land is natural or non-natural. The rule of absolute liability applies when an enterprise engages in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm occurs to anyone or anything as a result of an accident while conducting that hazardous activity. For instance, in the event of the escape of poisonous gas, the enterprise dealing in such gas is strictly and absolutely liable to all those harmed by the accident, and this liability is not subject to any exceptions. Such enterprise owes the community an absolute and non-delegable duty to ensure that no one is harmed. Such an enterprise must conduct its operations safely, and in the event of a loss, it must be fully liable to compensate for the loss. The enterprise cannot assert that it exercised all reasonable care and that no harm occurred as a result of its negligence. The quantum of damages is also different than in the case of strict liability as exemplary damages are awarded, whereas, in strict liability, compensatory damages are awarded.
Question 21:
Ramu was a skilled and experienced technician at a private authorised chemical factory that manufactured chemicals to be sold for use in explosives to be used by the army. The factory had been there for almost 20 years and owing to the annual checks and repairs carried out by the managers, was in excellent condition. One day, however, Ramu was trying to close one of the valves in the factory when the nozzle broke, exposing him to the harmful chemicals. Thankfully, the factory was fully sealed and the gas did not escape its premises. But it filled up within the factory and killed all those who were inside. Decide:
(a) The factory owners will not be absolutely liable as the gas did not escape the factory premises, an essential pre-requisite.
(b) The factory owners will not be liable as the factory was authorised, and therefore, it was not non-natural use of land.
(c) The factory owners will be absolutely liable as they were carrying out an inherently dangerous activity of manufacturing harmful chemicals, which escaped and caused harm.
(d) The factory owners will not be liable as Ramu was at fault and not them.
Question 22:
Imagine if in the above scenario, the gas had, in fact, spread out of the factory premises, but instead, it was such that it did not harm humans, but only plants. The gas that escaped is of a nature that causes plants to instantly dry up. Supposing that the gas leak, which was not discovered until a day later, caused all the nearby fauna to die, would the factory owners now be absolutely liable?
(a) No, as plants are irrelevant in determining the damage caused by an inherently dangerous activity and do not matter. It is harm caused to humans alone that matters.
(b) Yes, as the activity was inherently dangerous and caused damage to the plants nearby, injuring the environment.
(c) No, as the factory was authorised, and there has been no non-natural use of land.
(d) Yes, as there has been an escape of gas.
Question 23:
A company was planning to build a tunnel through the hills of Kashmir to improve access and reduce travel time. The project required blasting off of a huge chunk of the hill they planned to start construction from. It was a dangerous task and so, it was planned meticulously in advance for over a year, with multiple skilled engineers, and other specialists. Demo explosions were conducted in artificial environments to be absolutely sure of the calculations. However, on the day of the actual explosion, after the blast had been done, a minor earthquake occurred, causing the loose rocks as a result of the blast to shift, which eventually caused a landslide killing hundreds. Decide:
(a) The company can put forward the defence of act of god as the earthquake was unforeseeable and unpredictable.
(b) The company cannot be held absolutely liable as they took all necessary precautions, and took reasonable care to avoid such a disaster and it is not their fault something like this occurred.
(c) The company is not liable as there has not been escape of any dangerous substance.
(d) The company is absolutely liable as they were engaged in an inherently hazardous activity which caused harm to other persons.
Question 24:
Which of the following is not true?
(a) All of the conditions for strict liability need to be met first of all before bringing an action for absolute liability.
(b) English tort law has been the foundation for the development of Indian tort law.
(c) Act of God cannot be an exception to absolute liability.
(d) Exemplary damages are awarded in a case for absolute liability as the stakes are high.
Question 25:
What might be the reason behind not allowing any exceptions at all to the case of absolute liability?
(a) It is just a way of being mean to large corporations.
(b) It helps the victims get large payments in the form of exemplary damages.
(c) Judges got bored with strict liability and decided to derive new concepts.
(d) The cases to which it applies are of activities so inherently dangerous and hazardous that the enterprise owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the masses to be careful, which if not maintained would cause severe loss of life and property, which simply cannot be afforded.
Nuisance: Every person is entitled to the peaceful possession of his property. Any element of disturbance or hindrance in the enjoyment of property rights would constitute a nuisance. According to Stephen, any act that causes annoyance or injury to the defendant, concerning his enjoyment of his property, and which does not constitute trespass, is a nuisance. A person can be held liable for nuisance irrespective of the fact whether the intended to cause nuisance or not.
It can therefore, be defined as unlawful interference in the peaceful enjoyment of one’s property, or any right associated with it. However, there is a significant difference between trespass and nuisance. In the former, there occurs a physical interference in the plaintiff’s possession of the land. Whereas in latter, there is more of an indirect interference with the plaintiff’s right to property. For instance, flinging pebbles at the plaintiff’s property would constitute trespass, whereas hindering the plaintiff’s peaceful possession of the property by playing your radio at an unusually high volume would result in a nuisance. Nuisance could occur either with respect to a particular individual’s property rights or in the context of the general public’s property rights.
While public nuisance is a criminal offence punishable under section 268 of the IPC, it is used in situations when a person commits an act that causes common injury, danger, or annoyance to the general public. However, since it is unconcerned with individual rights, a person could sue the same wrongdoer in his private capacity also if peaceful possession of the plaintiff’s property is interfered with unlawfully or if he has been caused physical discomfort in any manner. It needs to be separately shown, in an action for private nuisance, that the injury faced is substantially greater than what others have faced; i.e., there has been some special damage, and such damage must be direct and not consequential. Therefore, it is not actionable per se, and requires that damage be proven in order to bring a claim under it.
Every little discomfort however, cannot be brought into this category; it has to exceed reasonable limits and cause discomfort substantially to the plaintiff to be actionable. The standard of care here is such that it must cause inconvenience to an average, ordinary person and not a sensitive, weak or sick one.
Question 26:
Ross used to grow pine trees in his garden, and used to pluck the pine cones from it and paint them to be used as decoration in his house. Chandler, his neighbour, used to water the tree whenever Ross was not home, and was equally fond of pine cones. Eventually, the tree grew big and its branches began to protrude into Chandler’s land. One day, a massive wind blew and multiple pine cones flew into Chandler’s house, breaking multiple glass windows. Has nuisance been caused to him?
(a) No, as it was act in consequence of the wind, and cannot be considered nuisance.
(b) Yes, as substantial damage has been caused to Chandler.
(c) Yes, as the branches protruded into Chandler’s garden.
(d) No, as this is trespass.
Question 27:
If in the above fact situation, it was such that pine cones have been falling into Chandler’s field for a long time, and causing him extra expenses to clean his lawn, and that even after repeated reminders, Ross has not bothered to have the branches of the tree cut away from Chandler’s land, would it be nuisance?
(a) Yes, as such repeated requests by Chandler are irritating to Ross.
(b) Yes, as special and direct damage to Chandler has been caused by Ross’ actions.
(c) No, as Chandler himself liked the plant and cannot complain now.
(d) No, as cleaning expenses cannot be counted as special damages.
Question 28:
Monu and his friends formed a small band together and offered to perform at weddings etc. Finally, one day, they landed one such contract, and began practicing in Monu’s basement. Sonu, Monu’s neighbour, was an insomniac and complained that he could not sleep because of the noise caused by the band practice. No other neighbour complained as such, except him. Has there been nuisance caused to him?
(a) Yes, as the noise is clearly troubling him and has caused him loss of sleep.
(b) No, as no other neighbour is complaining of it.
(c) No, as the standard of care is not that of a sick, insomniac man, but that of an ordinary man.
(d) Yes, as he has been caused special and direct damage in the form of loss of sleep.
Question 29:
Which of the following statements is true?
(a) Nuisance is an intentional tort.
(b) There is no need to show special damages to institute an action under public nuisance.
(c) Private nuisance is committed by direct and consequential acts, both.
(d) The slightest discomfort to a person can give him right to institute an action under private nuisance.
Question 30:
Which of the following shall give rise to an action for public nuisance?
(a) A child who keeps flying kites that constantly lands in his neighbour’s balcony causing them discomfort.
(b) A man whose neighbours play extremely loud music during the night every day.
(c) A man who burns leaves in his garden everyday and allows the smoke to fly away towards his neighbour’s house.
(d) A man urinating at all cars passing by
Exceptions to Defamation: Defamation means the act of publishing defamatory content that can cause harm to a man’s reputation in the eyes of an ordinary man. A defamatory statement can be in oral or written form. Any untrue and false statement, published in either oral or written form which harms or decreases the respect, regard, and reputation of a man or influences disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions against an individual is regarded as defamation. The subsequent part of the write up would deal with the exceptions of defamation. Any statement which is true and is published for the public good shall not be considered as defamatory.
If any statement or criticism is published regarding a public servant discharging his public functions or his character, in good faith and the scope of the statement only relates to the conduct, character or functions discharged in that position, then it would not amount to defamation. Such comments should be made only in good faith without any bad intentions or malice and must be fair and honest. Any statement published, which contains the results of a court case or a report of the proceedings of a Court shall not be considered defamatory until and unless they are true.
If any information or opinion is published regarding the merits of any case or the conduct of parties or any witnesses, then it would not be counted as defamation. The statements should be made in good faith and should respect the character of persons. If a person, in good faith, expresses his views about the performance or character of an author which the author has submitted to the judgement of the public at large, then it does not amount to defamation, the requirement being that the author has expressly submitted his performance to the public. For example, an author submits his book for the judgement of the public or an actor or performer submits his work to the judgement of the viewers.
If any person delivers any censure or expresses severe disapproval on another person’s conduct, that it will not amount to defamation unless and until the person giving the censure has a lawful authority to do so or has any authority arising out of a valid contract over the other person on whom the censure is applied. If any person accuses another person of something in good faith, it will not amount to defamation if they have lawful authority over the other person. If any person makes any imputations or accusations on another person, in good faith, in order to protect his own interests or for the public good, then it shall not be considered as defamation.
Question 31:
Mr. A and Mr. B know each other since their school days. They do not have a very good relationship with each other since their school days. Mr. A qualified for the IAS examination and was posted as the district magistrate in city of residence of B. B is a businessman and has various paper factories in the city. Mr. A raided one of Mr. B’s factories and after a preliminary investigation, decided to seal the factory until further orders. After a few months, the whole issue was sorted out. Mr. B in an interview said that A is a corrupt officer and works for money.
(a) Mr. B is liable for defamation because he put Mr A into disrepute in front of right-minded people in the society.
(b) Mr. B is not liable because the comments were made in good faith and are fair criticism of a public figure.
(c) Mr. B is liable because he already had ill-will against Mr. A and in pursuance of the same, he accused Mr. A.
(d) Mr. B is not liable because he was raided wrongly by Mr. A.
Question 32:
In the last question, it was found that Mr. A carried out the raid on Mr. B’s factory out of personal rivalry with Mr. B. It caused a good amount of loss, both financially and mentally, to Mr. B and made him restart operations in the factory. Mr. B was aware of this fact and made the same statement in the interview.
(a) Mr. B is liable because the comment was defamatory and tarnished the image of Mr A.
(b) B is not liable because they are childhood friends and such remarks do not hurt their image in public.
(c) Mr. B is liable because the comment was spoken with ill-will against Mr. A due to their personal relations.
(d) Mr. B is not liable because the comment was a fair criticism, and it is also found that Mr. A was not honest in his approach.
Question 33:
The Supreme Court of India passed a judgment in a rape case in favor of the accused. The court asked the accused to give some money to the victim and ask for forgiveness from her. Ramesh wrote an article against the judgment. He pointed out that one of the judges in the case was biased against women and was also affiliated with an alleged male chauvinist organization. This, according to Ramesh, was the reason behind such a ‘sexist’ and ‘misogynist’ judgment of the court.
(a) Ramesh is not liable because he carried out a genuine criticism of a judgment of the Court.
(b) Ramesh is liable because he slandered the character of the judge and also did not discuss the judgment on merits.
(c) Ramesh is not liable because he censured a public figure without any malice.
(d) Ramesh is liable because he defamed the judge in front of right-minded people in society.
Question 34:
John was a known thief in Berhampur, Odisha. He used to regularly conduct theft from the houses of the people of the village. One day, he was caught red-handed by the police, and while en route to the police station, the police were saying words like “we finally got the thief” and “have a look at the most dreaded criminal of this village”.
(a) The police officers are liable for defamation because they cannot abuse John until his guilt is proven.
(b) The police officers are not liable because the statement was made in good faith to protect the general public from John.
(c) The police officers are liable for defamation because the public perception against John has turned stronger.
(d) The police officers are not liable because the statement was made in the spur of the moment and it is a valid exception of defamation.
Question 35:
Which of the following is not a valid defence of Defamation?
(a) The statement was made in the spur of the moment and was in good faith.
(b) The statement was true in nature.
(c) The statement was made as a genuine criticism of a public figure.
(d) The statement was made to protect one’s interest and does not harm the reputation of the other individual.
Defamation : A simple net surfing on defamation makes it clear that it involves any kind of activity that aims to damage or cause harm to the good reputation of an individual. But the term ‘defamation’ has both explanations and exceptions attached to its definition when seen through the lenses of Indian laws. The prime reason for knowing the laws governing the statutorily recognised offence of defamation is to protect one’s dignity, as has been guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
An accused individual must have created or disseminated defamatory content for an offence to be proven. While ‘creating’ typically refers to authorship, someone who intentionally or knowingly duplicates or copies defamatory content (with intent, for example) may also be held accountable. A person who is not the author or publisher can claim that the defamatory text was distributed accidentally if intent cannot be shown. The purpose of defamation law is to safeguard a person’s interest in their reputation. However, it has been significantly changed to ensure that public figures cannot use defamatory activities to avoid being held accountable for their actions and public responsibilities.
The statement must be defamatory, and the validity of the statement is determined by how the general public as a whole will perceive the subject of the statement; The statement must be about the plaintiff, and it must demonstrate that it is falsely disparaging them; and That assertion must be made public.
Defamation is both a criminal (which carries a prison sentence) and a civil offence (punishable through the award of damages) in India. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) codifies the criminal law on defamation, whereas defamation is penalised as a civil offence under the law of torts. Defamation is defined in Section 499, and the punishment is outlined in Section 500. The offence of defamation is defined as any spoken, written, or visual statement about another person designed to damage that person’s reputation. Indirect methods such as using subtle or veiled language to convey a defamatory meaning, potentially damaging someone’s reputation, also amount to defamation. The conduct of any person addressing any public issue or expressing comments on a public performance an example of exceptions to this rule, as well as any imputation of truth required for the public benefit. Consequently, the fundamental components of defamation are the dissemination of spoken, written, sign, or other visible material, with the goal that such an imputation would reduce the person’s opinion, and Such slander is committed in front of society’s upstanding citizens.
Question 36:
Akash and Ashutosh planned to steal few chocolates from a shop located inside a shopping complex. They entered the shop and Akash picked up 2 KitKat chocolate and kept them inside his jacket. Ashutosh also picked up 4 Diary Milk Chocolate and kept them in his pants. They proceeded to exit from the shop and the guard started to frisk Akash. While all this was happening, Ashutosh went to the billing counter and purchased the 4 Chocolates he had taken from the shop. Akash and Ashutosh were detained in the manager’s office with only the other employee. The shop manager started yelling at them and accused Ashutosh of being a “seasoned shoplifter”.
(a) Ashutosh is defamed since he did not steal any chocolate.
(b) Ashutosh is not defamed because he had the intention to steal the chocolate and kept them in his pockets in continuance of that intention.
(c) Ashutosh is defamed because he was wrongfully slandered in front of the other employee and Akash for shoplifting.
(d) Ashutosh is not defamed because he was complicit in the whole act and there was no public in the manager’s office.
Question 37:
In the previous question, if, after conducting the preliminary investigation, the same statement was made against Akash, would that come under defamation?
(a) Yes, because the manager cannot make such statements against Aakash in front of his employee.
(b) No, because Akash has caused a loss to the shop by stealing the goods.
(c) No, because the statement is true and does not cause harm to the reputation of Akash.
(d) Yes, because the allegation of the manager has caused harm to the reputation of Akash in the minds of right-minded people in the society
Question 38:
In the last question, Akash was subjected to a fine after being caught. Next time they went to the shop, and he was frisked at the exit. One of the employees mentioned the last incident as a reason for this search in front of all the people.
(a) The employee is not liable for defamation because he did it for the benefit of the public and it was true.
(b) The employee is liable for defamation because all the essentials of defamation are fulfilled.
(c) The employee is liable for defamation because he tarnished the reputation of Akash in front of right-minded people in society.
(d) The employee is not liable for defamation because he enjoys the privilege of being the employee on duty.
Question 39:
Pakistan is a sovereign nation with an independent judiciary. The citizens and the ministers take pride in that. The Pakistani judiciary is one of the strongest in the world. One day, Mr Mradul posted on his Instagram, a picture of the Supreme Court of India being coloured with the same color as that used mostly by the ruling party of Indian central government. He also wrote below the same post that the Indian Judiciary is spineless and filled with goons and thieves.
(a) Mr Mradul is liable for defamation because he diminished the respect of the judiciary.
(b) Mr Mradul is not liable because he is doing a genuine criticism of a public figure.
(c) Mr. Mradul is liable for defamation because the statement is false and was made public and could affect the reputation of the supreme court.
(d) Mr. Mradul is not liable because the statement would not lead to tarnishing of the image of the Supreme Court in the right mind people of the society.
Question 40:
Mr. RK and Mr. AP are professors at a law university. They both take lectures of the students of their respective subjects. One day in class, Mr RK started to discuss the method of taking attendance properly and without any ambiguity. He, in a very veiled manner, alleged Mr. AP for not taking attendance properly and failing in his duty as a professor.
(a) Mr. RK is not liable because he is making genuine criticism of Mr. AP’s method of taking attendance.
(b) Mr. RK is liable because he has defamed Mr. AP in front of the whole class.
(c) Mr. RK is liable because Mr. AP is a very righteous and honest professor and making such allegations can tarnish his image.
(d) Mr. RK is not liable because he made a veiled reference and did not explicitly refer to Mr. AP.
Master-Servant Liability: A master is liable to third persons for every such wrong of his servant as is committed in the course of his employment, and for the master’s benefit, although the master did not authorize, or was not cognizant of, or had even expressly forbidden the act or omission in question. But a master is not liable for the torts or negligence of his servant in any matter beyond the scope of the employment, unless he has expressly authorized them to be done, or has subsequently adopted them for his own use and benefit.
A servant is a person who voluntarily agrees, whether for wages or not, to subject himself at all times during the period of service to the lawful orders and directions of another in respect of certain work to be done. A master is the person who is legally entitled to give such orders and to have them obeyed. Servants may be roughly classified as:
- menial servants, including domestic servants;
- persons employed in non-domestic occupations, such as clerks and persons engaged in offices, shops, factories, and other business occupations, laborers, artisans, and other work men, etc.; and
- apprentices.
The relation of master and servant exists only between persons of whom the one has the order and control of the work done by the other. A master is under no liability for the acts of the servant whom he has temporarily lent to another person, the acts of the servant being for the time being beyond his control. When, therefore, an individual lends his servant to another for a particular employment, the servant in respect of acts done in such employment must be considered as the servant of the person by whom he is for the time being employed, although he remains the general servant of his master who has temporarily lent him to such person, and this, apparently, whether his master receives consideration for the services of the servant or whether he lends his servant gratuitously.
Course of employment and ‘scope of authority,’ are equivalent terms, and both extend the master’s liability beyond the actual authority given to the servant. The injury done by a servant in the course of his service or employment for which the master becomes liable is very admirably classified by Pollock in the following manner:
(1) The wrong may be the natural consequence of something being done by a servant with ordinary care in execution of the master’s specific orders.
(2) The wrong may be due to the servants’ want of care in carrying on the work or business in which he is employed.
(3) The servant’s wrong in excess or mistaken execution of a lawful authority.
(4) A wilful wrong, such as assault, provided the act is done on the master’s behalf and with the intention of serving his purposes.
Question 41:
Prerak and Tanmay are good friends. Once, Tanmay had a wedding, so he asked Prerak for some househelp. Prerak sent his servant, Sparsh, to help him. Sparsh helped him and did everything he was ordered to do by Tanmay. One day, he was ordered to get the fruits and vegetables from the market. Sparsh took his motorcycle to go to the market and accidentally hit a pedestrian. The pedestrian caught him and filed a case against both him and Tanmay. Will Tanmay be vicariously liable?
(a) Yes, the servant was working under his control during the incident.
(b) Yes, the servant hit the pedestrian with his own bike.
(c) No, Sparsh was Prerak’s servant and not Tanmay’s.
(d) No, the servant was negligent in his work and not Tanmay.
Question 42:
Suppose in the above question, the pedestrian knew Sparsh and also knew that Prerak was his master, so, the pedestrian filed a case against both Sparsh and Prerak. Will Prerak be vicariously liable in this case?
(a) Yes, Sparsh was Prerak’s servant.
(b) Yes, Sparsh was negligent in his work.
(c) No, Sparsh was not under Prerak’s control.
(d) No, Sparsh was working with his own motorcycle.
Must Know for Every CLAT Aspirant:
| How to prepare for CLAT? | Career Opportunities after Law |
| CLAT Marking Scheme | CLAT Exam Date |
| Best Books for CLAT Preparation | CLAT Age Limit |
| CLAT Eligibility Criteria | CLAT Syllabus PDF |
Question 43:
Ankit is the servant of Som. Som treated his servant very well and Ankit respected him very much. One day, when Ankit was out to buy vegetables for Som, a rival of Som, Ankur, identified Ankit and came to him. He started insulting Som and making a mockery of him. Ankit was furious from this act of his and told him to stop and if he didn’t, he would beat him up. Ankur filed a case against both Ankit and Som for threatening him. Will Som be vicariously liable in this case?
(a) Yes, Ankit was doing his master’s work during the incident.
(b) Yes, Ankit was working on his master’s behalf.
(c) No, Ankit threatened him on his own whims.
(d) No, Ankur insulted him first.
Question 44:
Som recently bought 50 tons of flour for his baking company. As the quantity of the flour was too much for him to transport, he paid for the flour and told the shopkeeper that his servant will later come to take the flour. His servant, Ankit, later came to take the flour but instead of 50 tons, he mistakenly took 60 tons. The shopkeeper caught him and filed a case against him and Som. Will Som be vicariously liable in this case?
(a) Yes, his servant mistakenly took more flour.
(b) Yes, his servant was caught stealing more flour.
(c) No, he bought the flour.
(d) No, it was a mistake.
Question 45:
Som owns a transportation company which is involved in the business of transporting cement and bricks. Ankit is his servant who drives his truck for him. One day, his truck carriage was broken such that goods would spill if transported from it. To tighten the goods, he picked up a rope from the factory. The factory owner filed a case against both Ankit and Som. Will Som be vicariously liable?
(a) Yes, he didn’t take proper care of his truck.
(b) Yes, Ankit took the rope to do Som’s work.
(c) No, Ankit didn’t take permission from Som to take the rope.
(d) No, he didn’t ask him to take the rope.
Volenti Non Fit Injuria: In the law of torts, there is a duty on every person do acts with reasonable care in order to avoid any harm which may occur due to their failure of taking such care. This is the general rule in torts but there are certain exceptions which are allowed in these cases and these called as defences to tort. Under these defences, a defendant can escape liability and volenti non-fit injuria is also one such defence which is available for the defendant.
In case a person gives his consent to doing of an act which leads to him getting injured, then even if an injury is caused by the other person given that reasonable care was taken by such a person, he cannot claim any damages from that person because the act was one for which he voluntarily consented. The consent of the plaintiff acts as a defence and this defence is called volenti non fit injuria which means to a willing person no injury happens.
For the application of the defence of volenti non fit injuria there are some essential elements or conditions which should be present in a case and only when they are fulfilled, this defence can be taken to prevent liability.
There are 2 essential elements in this defence: (1) The plaintiff has the knowledge of the risk (2) The plaintiff with the knowledge of risk has voluntarily agreed to suffer the harm. Thus, whenever the plaintiff is aware of the possibility of harm which is likely to be caused by an act and when he still accepts to do that act and therefore agrees to suffer the injury, a defendant is relieved of his liability.
But only having knowledge about the risk is not enough for the application of this defence, It is known as Scienti non fit injuria, which means that mere knowledge does mean consent to the risk. Thus, having knowledge is only a partial fulfilment of the conditions for the application of volenti non fit injuria.
In the cases where the defendant is taking the defence of volenti non fit injuria, the burden of proof is on him to show that the plaintiff had full knowledge of the act and he had consented to the risk involved in the act.
Question 46:
Kubher went for bungee jumping at Contra Dam in Singapore. The Contra Dam, also known as the Verzasca Dam or the Locarno Dam, takes the third spot, with a bungee jump at 220 metres. Kubher had knowledge of the risks and had consented to the same. It happened to be so that the person making Kubher do the bungee jump forgot to tie the bungee rope with Kubher’s harness and he suffered from severe injuries. Decide.
(a) The bungee jumping authorities would be liable since reasonable care wasn’t taken.
(b) The bungee jumping authorities wouldn’t be liable since Kubher had the knowledge of the risk.
(c) The bungee jumping authorities wouldn’t be liable since Kubher had consented to the risks.
(d) Both B and C
Question 47:
Pooja had wanted to go sky diving for a long time but wasn’t able to since she was afraid of the heights. Her friends were adamant about fulfilling this wish of Pooja and therefore, gave her all the knowledge about the risks involved. After doing so, they gave her anaesthesia and took her to sky dive. They woke her up right before sky diving and pushed her off the plane. Pooja was somehow able to land but suffered from injuries. Could her friends take the defence of volenti non fit injuria?
(a) Yes, since Pooja had consented by repeatedly showing her wishes of going sky diving.
(b) Yes, since Pooja had knowledge of all the risks involved in Sky Diving.
(c) No, since mere knowledge of the risks involved isn’t enough.
(d) Both (a) and (b)
Question 48:
Following from the above question. Let us assume that Pooja woke up on the airplane itself and before jumping, Pooja’s friends asked her for her consent. Pooja who had always wanted to sky dive, gave in and consented to the same. Pooja humped off from the airplane and suffered minor injuries. Could her friends now use the defence of Volenti non fit injuria?
(a) No, since her consent was taken via undue influence.
(b) No, since her consent was taken via coercion.
(c) Yes, since she had knowledge of the risks involved and had consented to the same.
(d) No, since mere knowledge isn’t enough.
Question 49:
Following from the above question. Let us assume that Pooja sought to claim damages from her friends for suffering from injuries as a result of sky diving. Her friends sought to take the defence of volenti non fit injuria on whom would be the burden of proof as to prove the defense correct/incorrect?
(a) Pooja would have to prove that she didn’t have the knowledge and her friends would have to prove that she had consented.
(b) Pooja would have to prove that she had not consented and her friends would have to prove that she had the knowledge.
(c) Pooja would have to prove that she neither had the knowledge nor had consented to it.
(d) Pooja’s friends would have to prove that she had the knowledge and had consented to it.
Question 50:
Which of the following could you reasonably understand from the passage?
i. Volenti non fit injuria and Scienti non fit injuria are somewhat similar.
ii. If the plaintiff had given consent, there’s no need to take reasonable care.
(a) i and ii
(b) Only i
(c) Only ii
(d) None.
False Imprisonment: Wrongful imprisonment occurs when a person (who does not have the legal right or justification) intentionally restricts another person from exercising his freedom. When someone intentionally restricts another person’s freedom, he can be found liable for false imprisonment in civil and criminal courts.
Under the pretext of false imprisonment, one does not have to lock the person up, which amounts to confinement. The defendant has to ‘unjustifiably’ restrain an individual to a particular area where a reasonable person, in a normal situation, would believe that they cannot leave. The plaintiff must have sufficient cause to believe that he would be harmed if he attempted to leave that particular bounded area. However, if that individual remains in that area willingly or after giving his consent, not obtained through coercion or undue influence, it is not a case of false imprisonment. To prove a false imprisonment claim in a civil suit, the following elements must be present:
- Wilful detention – False imprisonment or restraint must be intentional or willful. Accidentally closing the door when someone is on the other side is not wrongful confinement or false imprisonment. Wilful detention applies to intentional restraint in any form, including physically restraining a person from exiting, locking him in a building, room, or from other places, and restraining him from leaving through force or intimidation.
- The intention factor – Generally, the tort of false imprisonment must be intentional. A person is not liable for false imprisonment unless his or her act is done to impose confinement or with the knowledge that such confinement, to a substantial certainty, will result from it. For this tort, Malice is irrelevant. It is ordinarily upon the judges to determine from the evidence, as a question of fact, the intention of the defendant in an action for false imprisonment.
- Knowledge of the plaintiff – The detention of another person would have been wrong. There is no requirement that the plaintiff claiming another person for false imprisonment was aware of his restraint on his freedom at the time of his confinement.
- Total restraint of liberty – The purpose of the tort of false imprisonment is to maintain an individual’s liberty of unrestricted movement. So there should be the imposition of total restraint on the liberty of an individual for a particular period without any lawful justification. If the defendant intentionally restricts the freedom of the plaintiff and the plaintiff, as a reasonable person finds no way to use his liberty, it is considered false imprisonment.
Question 51:
Raghav and Vishal were good friends. One day, when they were both partying at Vishal’s house, Raghav had too much to drink and was not able to properly move. Seeing this, Vishal held him and accompanied him to the guest’s bedroom. Vishal switched on the AC and locked the room from the outside so that Raghav may sleep soundly without any disturbance. When Raghav woke up in the morning, he was able to leave the room and thus later filed a case against Vishal for false imprisonment. Will Vishal be liable?
(a) Yes, Raghav was drunk and unstable when Vishal detained him.
(b) Yes, he willfully imprisoned Raghav.
(c) No, he had no malice behind detaining Raghav.
(d) No, he didn’t intend to falsely imprison him.
Question 52:
Vulture is s truck driver who transports metal beams and pipes. One day, while transporting the goods, the harness holding the goods broke which lead to the goods spilling all over the road and blocking it. Stephen, who was one of the drivers stuck in the traffic caused because of the commotion decided to file a case of false imprisonment against Vulture. Will Vulture be liable?
(a) Yes, he blocked the road and caused the traffic.
(b) Yes, he caused the commotion leading to the confinement of Stephen.
(c) No, Stephen is not confined.
(d) No, he didn’t have any malicious intentions.
Question 53:
Ras Al Ghul is the leader of a gang, who is notorious for sneaking into houses, stealing, and killing anyone who interferes. One day, he sneaked into the Wayne House to steal. When they entered the home, they noticed that Thomas and Martha are still at home. He told them to keep quiet and not leave the room and left to steal the rest of the house. The door of the room was open but they did not leave it as they were afraid that he might attack them. Later, Thomas filed a case against him for many things including false imprisonment. Will Ras Al Ghul be liable?
(a) Yes, he told them to not leave the room.
(b) Yes, they were under the impression that they can’t leave the room.
(c) No, the door of the room was opened.
(d) No, they were at their own home.
Resources for CLAT Exam Preparation:
| CLAT Previous Year Question Paper | CLAT Sample Papers |
| CLAT Mock Test | CLAT Current Affairs |
| CLAT Topper Interviews | Online CLAT Coaching |
Question 54:
Suppose in the above question, there was a window in the room which lead to the outside of the house. The window was accessible to both Thomas and Martha but they still refuse to leave the house. Later, they filed a case of false imprisonment against Ras Al Ghul. Will Ras Al Ghul be liable?
(a) Yes, he told them to not leave the room.
(b) Yes, they were under the impression that they can’t leave the room.
(c) No, the door of the room was opened.
(d) No, they could have used the window to escape.
Question 55:
One day, Scott Lang and his friend sneaked into a house to steal. While stealing, they searched rooms to find anything to steal. Scott, while searching a room to find something to steal, found nothing and locked the room while leaving. Unbeknownst to him, a family was hiding beneath the bed. Later, the family filed a case against him for false imprisonment. Will Scott be liable?
(a) Yes, he imprisoned the family in the room.
(b) Yes, he sneaked into the house intending to steal.
(c) No, he didn’t know about the family hiding beneath the bed.
(d) No, the family was at their home.
Download Answer Key With Explanations
Click on the button below to download the solutions with proper explanations:
Top Law of Torts Topics Asked in CLAT
| Tort Topic | Why It Appears in CLAT |
| Negligence & Duty of Care | Clear principle–fact questions, predictable reasoning pattern |
| Vicarious Liability | Easy employer–employee scenarios |
| Strict & Absolute Liability | Classic CLAT favourites, applied in environmental/industrial contexts |
| Nuisance (Public & Private) | Simple factual distinctions |
| Trespass (Land & Person) | Direct application-based |
| Defamation | Media-related cases appear often |
| False Imprisonment / Assault / Battery | Straightforward intentional torts |
| Remoteness of Damage | But-for and proximate cause reasoning |
| Consumer-related tort issues | Appears in modern fact patterns |
Syllabus Scope of Law of Torts in CLAT
| Area | Subtopics |
| Foundational Principles | Duty of care, breach, causation, foreseeability |
| General Defences | Consent, necessity, act of God, inevitable accident |
| Specific Torts | Nuisance, trespass, assault, battery, defamation |
| Liability | Strict, absolute, vicarious, joint liability |
| Harm to Person/Property | Medical negligence, economic loss, damage to property |
| Remedies | Damages, injunctions, compensation |
| Modern Extensions | Product liability, consumer harm, cyber-related negligence |
How to Solve Tort Questions in CLAT?
Below are the most important strategies:
1. Read the Principle Before Reading the Facts
Always begin with the principle because it tells you the rule you must apply. Students who read the facts first often get emotionally involved in the story and apply outside knowledge.
CLAT expects you to apply ONLY the rule given in the principle. Once you know the legal rule, reading the facts becomes easier since you know exactly what to look for.
2. Identify the Trigger Words (Unless, However, Notwithstanding, Provided That)
Tort principles often include exceptions. Words like unless, except, however, and notwithstanding completely change how the rule applies. Many students lose marks because they ignore these connectors.
Highlight or mentally note the trigger word, and then re-apply the rule carefully. In a tort question, missing one exception can flip the correct answer.
3. Break the Principle into Steps
Most tort principles follow a predictable structure.
For negligence, ask: Was there a duty of care? Was it breached? Did it cause the harm?
For strict liability, ask: Was the dangerous substance kept? Did it escape? Did it cause damage?
Breaking principles into steps helps you eliminate wrong options and reach the logical answer quickly.
4. Don’t Use Outside Knowledge
Your school knowledge, moral opinions, or real-life logic must NOT interfere with your answer. In CLAT, the principle is the law of the universe inside the question.
Even if the principle contradicts actual law, you must apply it exactly as written. This is where most students make mistakes – they think too practically instead of legally.
5. Use Elimination When Stuck
If two options seem similar, eliminate answers that:
- Add new facts
- Apply fairness or common sense instead of principle
- Ignore the exception mentioned
- Change the facts in subtle ways
Elimination works extremely well in tort questions where one option usually misinterprets the principle.
6. Pay Attention to the “Intention” Element
In torts like assault, battery, trespass, or defamation, intention changes everything. CLAT often creates confusion by altering intent in the facts. If intention is missing, the tort may not be complete. This small detail is often the difference between picking the right or wrong answer.
Top Mistakes to Avoid in Tort Questions in CLAT
- Using outside knowledge instead of the given principle
- Ignoring exceptions and qualifiers inside the principle
- Reading facts too fast and missing crucial details
- Mixing up strict liability and absolute liability
- Confusing nuisance with trespass
- Not checking intention in intentional torts
Law Colleges Information Related to CLAT:
FAQs About CLAT Law of Torts Questions
They are among the easiest because tort principles are simple and predictable.
No. CLAT tests only principle–fact application, not textbook definitions.
Negligence, vicarious liability, strict liability, defamation, and nuisance.
Solve 5–10 questions daily and analyse where your reasoning goes wrong.
Always break the principle into steps and ignore real-world knowledge.
Yes. CLAT often mixes tort principles with contract facts to test reasoning.
Very important, especially for assault, battery, defamation, and trespass.
No. CLAT does NOT test cases.
Yes, extremely. If you understand the principles, you can score near-perfect.
Explore CLAT coaching centers across different cities:
