LEGAL: Legal

Class Sheet Number of Questions: 25 Revision

Passage 1
The town of St. Minnesota had a lot of crowded markets which used to be at their busiest in the evening. A
particular evening, Marshall Eriksen, along with his friend Barney Stinson, went to the market to buy some
groceries. It was busy as usual and it was a while before they were able to reach the grocery shop which was
towards the centre of the market. The shop owner, Lily, who was also a very good friend of Marshall, went
inside the shop to pack groceries for Marshall. While she was gone, Ted Mosby, who was known to be a habitual
offender by the people of St. Minnesota, suddenly appeared in the market out of nowhere and tossed a time-
bomb into the crowded market space. It was about to land on the table of Lily’s shop but Marshall caught it
mid-air and in order to protect himself and the shop, threw it far away, towards a less crowded part of the
market. Unfortunately, the squib landed in the goods of another merchant named Robin. Robin, who was
caught unaware by this sudden commotion picked up the bomb and threw it hurriedly into the crowd, with
Quinn having absolutely no idea about a bomb coming towards her, where it accidentally hit her in the face just
as it exploded. The explosion damaged one of Quinn’s eyes permanently.
Assault is defined as a tort of acting intentionally, with specific intent, causing the reasonable apprehension of
an immediate harmful or offensive contact to the person against whom this tort is committed.
Battery is the tort of intentionally and voluntarily bringing about an unconsented harmful or offensive contact
with a person or to something closely associated with them. Unlike assault, in which the fear of imminent
contact can be sued against, battery involves an actual contact. Furthermore, a contact may constitute a battery
even if there is a delay between the defendant's act and the contact leading to the plaintiff's injury. For example,
where a person who digs a pit with the intent that another will fall into it later, or where a person who mixes
something offensive in food that he knows another will eat, has committed a battery against that other when
the other does in fact fall into the pit or eats the offensive matter.
1. Which of the following is correct according to the passage?
a) Ted committed the tort of assault against Quinn.
b) The tort of assault was committed by Ted against Lily.
c) Since it was Robin who threw the bomb towards Quinn, she should be held liable for assault against
Quinn.
d) None of the above.
2. Quinn decides to file a case and obtain some compensation for the damage done to her eye. Advise her
regarding the same.
a) She should sue Robin for the offence of assault and battery.
b) She should sue Ted for the offence of battery as he was the one who brought the bomb to the market.
c) She should sue Robin for the offence of battery against her.
d) None of the above.
3. Ted held a grudge against Stella for leaving her at the altar. So, he decided to take his revenge by placing a
land mine at the exact spot where Stella used to open her stall. He reached that spot and planted the mine
in the night itself. Stella came up with her stall in the morning the next day and without noticing it,
stepped on the land mine, injuring herself. She files a case against Ted. Decide:
a) Ted committed assault against Stella by giving her the apprehension of getting injured.
b) Ted committed battery against Stella.
c) Ted committed battery and assault against Stella.
d) Ted did not commit battery as he had placed the land mine a night before and hence it was not an
immediate harm.
4. Marshall, a brave soldier of the army, was going back to join his duty when he heard a terrorist making
plans to bomb five locations in the city. He followed him up and punched him in the first opportunity he
got. Later on, it turned out in a full body scan that Marshall had broken two bones of his neck, injuring
him gravely. A case was filed against Marshall by the terrorist. Decide:
a) This action of Marshall would amount to battery.
b) This is not battery as it was done by Marshall in the capacity of a soldier against a terrorist.
c) This is a case of assault and battery as the terrorist was hit without him realising that he was about to
be hit.
d) This is not battery as the terrorist was planning to bomb the city and Marshall hit him only because he
was trying to prevent the bombing.

(1)
© Possible education Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. Unauthorized copying, sale, distribution or
circulation of any of the contents of this work is a punishable offence under the laws of India.
LEGAL: Legal
Class Sheet Number of Questions: 25 Revision
5. According to the passage, which of these would amount to a case of assault?
a) Akash, who had been convicted of murder a year ago, requested an old man to move aside while trying
to cross the bridge. The old man, who was aware of his conviction stepped aside at once.
b) Anandita, who was well aware of the fact that Dev had an acute fear of dogs, led her ferocious dog onto
him, and asked him to hand over everything he was carrying.
c) Manas was told by his best friend that he would try and win over his girlfriend, leaving him feeling
quite insecure.
d) Norman was told by Lewis that he would’ve hit him with a sword only if he knew how to wield it.
Passage 2
Shubham had been a promising student in the ‘Maruti Driving School’ and was very quick to learn. He had
been there for just a week as of now, but could already drive his car around in the outskirts of the city where
there was less traffic. He had not started taking his car to the city yet and, in all situations, his teacher used to
sit with him in the car to prevent any unwanted situation from arising.
One day, when the teacher was off work, Shubham got a call from his father, who used to live well inside the
city, asking him to come home as soon as possible, as his mother suddenly had a heart-attack and had to be
admitted to a hospital. Shubham had absolutely no time to think about the consequences of driving without his
teacher. He took his car out and hurried towards the city. He was extremely worried about the situation and
was therefore going at a speed which was way beyond the speed limit. Unexpectedly, due to the presence of
some tar, which was being used to construct a road nearby, his car slipped and collided with Nandu’s parked
car. The collision set off the sensor alarm of the parked car. A thief, who had entered a bungalow nearby, heard
the alarm and believing that it was the siren of a police car, hurriedly tried to climb down the drain pipe.
Unfortunately, he slipped and received some heavy damage to his head, re-triggering his long subdued chronic
fatigue syndrome which he had been suffering from for eleven years before he had been able to supress it.
Negligence, is defined as an omission of a legal duty or the failure to exercise a standard of care which a person
would’ve exercised in the given circumstances and which could’ve been reasonably expected of them.
Novus actus intervenes or a new and intervening act is an act not in a direct relationship with the previous act
and the defendant cannot be held liable for any harm arising out of this new act.
6. The thief has filed a case of negligence against Shubham. You are the judge. Decide according to the
passage.
a) Shubham was driving negligently and rashly which led to the first act of setting off the alarm.
b) Shubham was not negligent as he had a valid reason for driving rashly.
c) This is not a case of negligence as Shubham could not have reasonably foreseen the events following
his collision.
d) This is negligence because an act of rash and negligent driving cannot be excused on the ground of a
medical emergency.
7. Which of the following, if true, would strengthen the thief’s claim against Shubham?
a) Nandu was a policeman and so his car alarm was actually a police siren.
b) Shubham could see that the road was covered with tar completely from a long distance and yet he
didn’t slow down.
c) The thief was climbing down the drain pipe when the siren went off and he fell down because of the
sudden noise.
d) All of the above are weak arguments.
8. Goku was going to the grocery market when he was stopped by Vegeta who begged him to carry him on
his back as he was too tired to walk around. Goku lifted Vegeta up and started walking towards the
market again. Suddenly, Frieza, who was driving his bike very rashly hit Goku who couldn’t move away
quickly as he was carrying Vegeta. As a result, he dislocated his hip. He files a case of negligence against
Vegeta. Decide:
a) This is a case of negligence as he would have moved out of Frieza’s way had it not been carrying
Vegeta.
b) This is not a case of negligence as Vegeta couldn’t have reasonably anticipated any such situation and
this was not a direct consequence of being lifted up by Goku.
c) This is a case of negligence. Vegeta could’ve anticipated any such event as they were walking on a road.
d) Both a and c.

(2)
© Possible education Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. Unauthorized copying, sale, distribution or
circulation of any of the contents of this work is a punishable offence under the laws of India.
LEGAL: Legal
Class Sheet Number of Questions: 25 Revision
9. The government brings about a new law which states that any harm arising out of an activity, however
remotely connected, shall the render the person suffering due to that activity liable for negligence. Now
decide based on the facts of the passage.
a) Shubham should be held liable for negligence as it all happened due to Shubham driving rashly in the
first place.
b) The thief is liable for negligence.
c) Shubham and the thief, both are partly liable for negligence.
d) Shubham is liable for negligence because he could’ve anticipated the harm arising out of his actions.
10. Which of the following is not in consensus with the passage?
a) A liability of negligence would arise if a person fails to exercise a reasonable amount of care towards
preventing any harm which could be reasonably expected to arise from an act.
b) A defendant cannot be held liable for any harm arising out of a new independent act.
c) Negligence, is defined as an omission of a legal duty or the failure to exercise a standard of utmost care
which should be equal to the standard of care exercised by a professional.
d) All of the above.
Passage 3
Thomas Wilkinson was the landlord of the Albion public house in Limehouse. A regular customer of the public
house, named Mr. Downton, decided to play a practical joke on Wilkinson's wife. When Mr. Wilkinson went to
see the races in Harlow, he left his wife to manage the house. Mr. Downton approached Mrs. Wilkinson and
told her, falsely, that her husband had been seriously injured in an accident and that he had broken both his
legs. He told her that she should go to him in a cab and bring two pillows to carry him home as he was unable to
move and lying on the road.
The effect of Mr. Downton's false statement to Mrs. Wilkinson was a violent shock to her nervous system,
causing her to vomit and for her hair to turn white and other more serious and physical consequences which at
one time threatened her reason, and entailing weeks of suffering and incapacity to her as well as expense to her
husband for her medical treatment. These consequences were not in any way the result of a history of bad
health or weakness of constitution, nor was there any evidence of predisposition to nervous shock or any other
idiosyncrasy.
A nervous shock is a psychiatric / mental illness or injury inflicted upon a person by intentional or negligent
actions or omissions of another. Often, it is a psychiatric disorder triggered by witnessing or coming to know
about an accident, for example an injury caused to one's parents or spouse.
The term remoteness of damage refers to the requirement that the damage as a consequence of a breach of duty
must not be too remote from the initial act of negligence i.e. the damage arising from the risk involved in the
negligent act must be foreseeable.
11. According to the passage, should Mr. Downtown be held liable for inflicting nervous shock upon Mrs.
Wilkinson?
a) No, he was playing a joke on her and had not anticipated any sort of serious harm to arise out of his
actions.
b) Yes, he negligently committed an act which led to Mrs. Wilkinson undergoing a nervous shock and
hence he should be held liable for the same.
c) Yes, he should’ve made sure that joke does not get stretched too far.
d) No, because unintentionally playing a practical joke on someone is not violative of any legal right of
that person.
12. Which of the following would weaken Mrs Wilkinson’s case against Mr. Downtown?
a) Mrs. Wilkinson had been suffering from attacks of this syndrome for a year now.
b) Mrs. Wilkinson had played a prank on Mr. Downtown a while back and she should have been prepared
for a retaliation on his part.
c) Somebody else had already informed Mrs. Wilkinson about the death of her husband to play a prank
on her, before Mr. Downtown did.
d) Both a or c.

(3)
© Possible education Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. Unauthorized copying, sale, distribution or
circulation of any of the contents of this work is a punishable offence under the laws of India.
LEGAL: Legal
Class Sheet Number of Questions: 25 Revision
13. Which of the following is in contravention to the passage?
a) For an offence of nervous shock to be committed, it should be proved that there was intent to cause
harm.
b) The damage arising from the risk involved in the negligent act must be reasonably foreseeable.
c) Nervous shock is said to be a psychiatric disorder triggered by witnessing or coming to know about an
accident.
d) The term remoteness of damage refers to the requirement that the damage must not be too remote
from the initial act of negligence.
14. Mrs. Wilkinson was finally recovering and had started going on walks on the recommendation of her
doctor. One day, as she was walking around Mr. Downtown’s house, she heard the voice of a screaming
woman from inside her house. That voice impacted her mental health and she went into a state of
permanent memory loss. Later on, it was found out that it was coming from a TV set. She sued him for
nervous shock. Decide:
a) It is a case of nervous shock as she was harmed by an act of Mr. Downtown.
b) It is a case of nervous shock as it could’ve been reasonably expected of him to make sure that nobody
else gets affected by that sort of a noise.
c) It is not a case of nervous shock as he is free to use his TV within his house in whatever manner he
deems correct.
d) It is not a case of nervous shock as the damage was too remote from the initial act and could not have
reasonably been foreseen.
15. In the same fact scenario as the passage, would Mr. Downtown still be held liable if he actually believed
that Mrs. Wilkinson’s husband had met with an accident?
a) Yes, because it still would’ve led her to going through the same mental agony.
b) No, because he would’ve played the role of a good citizen.
c) No, because he would’ve done that just to inform her about the situation and that act would not have
been negligent.
d) Yes, because the tort of nervous shock is independent of intent.
Passage 4
Trespass to land is committed when an individual or the object of an individual intentionally enters the land of
another without a lawful excuse. Trespass to land is actionable per se. Thus, the party whose land is entered
upon may sue even if no actual harm is done. If a trespass is actionable and no action is taken within
reasonable or prescribed time limits, the land owner may forever lose the right to seek a remedy, and may even
forfeit certain property rights. The maxim "cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad infernos" (whoever
owns the land owns it all the way to the heavens and to hell) is said to apply. However, it has been limited by
practical considerations.
Mr. Ross had been living in his house for twenty years now. He used to go to his terrace with his son every
evening to enjoy a walk in the setting sun. Suddenly, one day, he noticed six planes flying across the sky over
his house. The planes were high enough in the sky to barely look like little birds. He couldn’t hear any noise as
such, but he didn’t any sort of interruption or distraction with his evening walks. He, however, decided to
ignore it. It happened again the next day, and then it started happening on a daily basis. This happened
continuously for a week. After a week, he couldn’t take it anymore and sued the aviation company for trespass.
16. Would the act committed by the aviation company amount to trespass?
a) Yes, as the flight of the planes prevented him from enjoying his property in leisure.
b) No, this would not be trespass.
c) Yes, as the planes had crossed over his property without having a reasonable excuse.
d) No, as he could’ve easily walked somewhere else.
17. Ranbir, who was walking through the highway at a fairly high speed was stopped by two guards who
informed him that he had trespassed as the road went through Manvir’s private property. Decide:
a) Yes, this is trespass as he was going through someone else’s property at a high speed.
b) No, this is not trespass as he couldn’t have taken another route.
c) No, this is not trespass as he did not use the highway to intentionally commit trespass and had a valid
reason to travel on it.
d) Yes, this is trespass as trespass to land is actionable per se.

(4)
© Possible education Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. Unauthorized copying, sale, distribution or
circulation of any of the contents of this work is a punishable offence under the laws of India.
LEGAL: Legal
Class Sheet Number of Questions: 25 Revision
18. Which of the following is not in consensus with the passage?
a) Trespass to land is committed when an individual unintentionally enters the land of another without a
lawful excuse.
b) Whoever owns the land owns it all the way to the heavens and to hell.
c) If a trespass is actionable and no action is taken within prescribed time limits, the land owner may lose
the right to seek a remedy.
d) All of the above are in agreement to the passage.
19. Smeet was walking on the highway going through Mr. Kapoor’s garden and he was very well aware of the
fact. He liked looking at the flowers grown and maintained by Mr. Kapoor in that property and
occasionally used to pluck one or two out. Mr. Kapoor noticed him walking around in his property for two
hours straight and then asked him to leave on the contention that he was trespassing on his property.
Smeet replied that it was a public highway and he was free to stay and travel on it however he deemed
correct. Mr. Kapoor filed a case of trespass against him. Decide:
a) This does not amount to trespass as he was using a public highway.
b) This is trespass as he was deliberately lingering in that specific part of the highway and this was not a
normal use of the highway.
c) This is trespass as he plucked the flowers from his garden.
d) This is not trespass as he could have stayed on the highway for as long as he wanted to.
20. After the case was decided, Mr. Ross was faced by another issue when his neighbour started digging an
underground tunnel which extended into his property. He tried to complain but the neighbour said that
he had started digging it beneath his own property and that Mr. Ross’s rights over his land did not extend
beyond the surface of his land. Mr. Ross seeks your advice on the matter. Decide:
a) This is not trespass as the neighbour had the liberty to start the construction of anything within his
own premises.
b) This is not trespass.
c) This is trespass.
d) This is trespass as Mr. Ross has rights over reasonable lengths above and below the surface of his
property.
Passage 5
Cricket had been played at a small cricket ground in Lintz, near Burnopfield, County Durham, since 1905, on
land leased to the club by the National Coal Board. The National Coal Board also owned a field adjacent to the
ground, which it sold to Stanley Urban District Council. The Council sold the land to Wimpey for development.
A line of new semi-detached houses were built next to the ground in 1972, one of which, 20, Brackenridge, was
bought by the Millers.
The Millers' garden boundary was only 100 feet (30 m) from the nearest batting crease, and their house only 60
feet (18 m) further away. Several cricket balls were hit onto their property over the following years, causing
minor damage to their house (chipped paintwork, broken roof tiles) and risking personal injury to the Millers.
Despite measures taken by the club to minimise recurrences, including the erection of a 8 feet 9 inches (2.67 m)
high fence in March 1975 on top of a 6 feet (1.8 m) boundary wall and asking batsmen to try to hit fours rather
than sixes, a few balls continued to be hit out of the ground each season. For example, in 1975, 36 matches were
played over 20 weeks in the summer, with 2,221 six-ball overs being bowled. Out of the 13,326 legitimate
deliveries (ignoring no-balls and wides) there were 120 sixes, of which six crossed the fence and fell into the
housing estate.
The club offered to meet the cost of any property damage (£400), and suggested further countermeasures, such
as louvred window shutters, and a net over the Millers' garden. The Millers were not content and sued for
damages and an injunction to prevent cricket being played on the ground.
Nuisance in English law is an area of tort law broadly divided into two torts; private nuisance, where the
actions of the defendant are "causing a substantial and unreasonable interference with a [claimant]'s land or
his/her use or enjoyment of that land", and public nuisance, where the defendant's actions "materially affects
the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of the general public.

(5)
© Possible education Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. Unauthorized copying, sale, distribution or
circulation of any of the contents of this work is a punishable offence under the laws of India.
LEGAL: Legal
Class Sheet Number of Questions: 25 Revision
21. Would it be a case of nuisance according to the facts?
a) Yes, it will be a case of nuisance as there was unreasonable interference with their enjoyment of
property.
b) No, this would not be nuisance as the club had taken a number of measures to minimise the
inconvenience being caused due to their actions.
c) This would not be a case of nuisance, but of negligence.
d) Yes, this would be negligence as the balls were causing harm to the general public as well.
22. Which of these, if true, might have changed the outcome of the case?
a) The club had also installed a broad metal ring around the boundary to further prevent the balls form
going out.
b) The balls hadn’t fallen in their property for six years now, but still the defendants were sceptical about
the effectiveness of the measures taken by the club and hence had decided to sue them anyway.
c) The balls were not made of hard leather but could have caused damage if hit with sufficient power.
d) The number of balls escaping the ground had increased after the construction of the fence.
23. Which of these is not in agreement to the passage?
a) For nuisance to occur, there should be an unsubstantial and reasonable interference with a
[claimant]'s use of that land.
b) The tort of public nuisance is committed if the act materially affects the reasonable comfort and
convenience of life of the general public at large.
c) Nuisance is of two types.
d) All of the above are in agreement to the passage.
24. Mr. Winfield was a very sensitive person and used to play his violin to entertain the poor people living
across the road, who could not afford to pay for any sort of entertainment. The only issue was that he had
to play it loudly for the people on the other side of the road to be able to hear him, which they never
could. His neighbours had complained to him about this issue a lot, but he never used to pay any heed to
that. Finally, his neighbours filed a case of nuisance against him. Decide:
a) This is case of public nuisance as he was interfering with the reasonable comfort and convenience of
life of the general public using that road.
b) This is a case of private nuisance.
c) This is case of public as well as private nuisance as he was causing a substantial and unreasonable
interference with the enjoyment of public and private property of the people.
d) This is not a case of nuisance as he was justified in trying to help the poor.
25. Avantika, who was a budding writer used to go the park everyday to sit and write in solace. Her neighbour
asked her to not sit in the park as she was a painter and wanted to make a sketch of the park without
having to draw Avantika in it. Avantika refused to do so and her neighbour filed a case of nuisance against
her. Decide:
a) This is a case of nuisance as Avantika was unreasonably interfering with her neighbour’s right to enjoy
the view of the park.
b) This is a case of trespass and not nuisance.
c) This is a case of nuisance as Avantika could have easily sat in her room to write.
d) This is not a case of nuisance as Avantika was free to enjoy the luxury of sitting and writing in the park
and was not unreasonably interfering with her neighbour’s enjoyment of the same.

(6)
© Possible education Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. Unauthorized copying, sale, distribution or
circulation of any of the contents of this work is a punishable offence under the laws of India.