AILET (All India Law Entrance Test) 2018 MCQs Questions with Solutions and Explanations at Doorsteptutor. Com Part 7

Glide to success with Doorsteptutor material for AILET : get questions, notes, tests, video lectures and more- for all subjects of AILET.

Question 66

‘Diopter’ is the unit of measurement of ________.

A. Heat

B. Sound

C. Energy

D. power of a Lens

Question 67

If the election of the President of India is declared void by the Supreme Court, the acts performed by the President incumbent before the date of such decision of court are

A. valid but subject to judicial review

B. invalid

C. valid

D. valid but subject to the approval of the Parliament

Question 69

World՚s longest sandstone cave has been discovered in which of the following States?

A. Assam

B. Meghalaya

C. Jammu & Kashmir

D. Nagaland

Question 70

Which is the first Indian city to have its own logo for promoting tourism?

A. Goa

B. Agra

C. Jaipur

D. Bengaluru

Legal Aptitude

Question 71

Directions: Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.

Legal Principle:

(1) A person is liable for his negligence when he owed a duty of care to others and commits a breach of that duty causing injury thereby.

(2) Volenti non-fit injuria is defense to negligence.

Factual Situation: Anil and his wife, Reena, were in a shop as customers, where a skylight in the roof of the shop was broken, owing to the negligence of the contractors engaged in repairing the roof, and a portion of the glass fell and struck Anil causing him a severe shock. Reena, who was standing close to him, was not touched by the tailing glass, but reasonably believing her husband to be in danger, she instinctively clutched his arm, and tried to pull him from the spot. In doing this, she strained he leg in such a way as to bring about a recurrence of thrombosis. Anil and Reena are claiming compensation for their injuries which were caused due to the negligence of the shop owners. The shop owners are denying liability on the grounds of volenti non-fit injuria. The defense of volenti non-fit injuria

A. is available in respect of husband

B. is available in respect of wife

C. is available in respect of both husband and wife

D. is not available in respect of both husband and wife

Question 72

Directions: Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.

Legal Principles:

(1) Private nuisance is a continuous, unlawful and indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over or in connection with it.

(2) The person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima face answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.

(3) A person is liable if he can reasonably foresee that his acts would likely to Insure his neighbour.

(4) The foreseeability of the type of damage is a pre-requisite of liability in actions of nuisance.

Factual Situation: During 2011, a European Directive was issued requiring nations of the European Community lo establish standards on the presence of Perchloroethene (PCE) in water, which the Kingsland did in 2013.

Alfa Water Co. purchased a borehole in 2007 to extract water to supply to the public in Kingsland. In 2014, it tested the water to ensure that it met minimum standards for human consumption and discovered that it was contaminated with an organochlorine solvent (PCE) , On investigation, it emerged that the solvent seeped into the soil through the building floor of the Light & Soft Leather Tannery, about 3 miles from the borehole that eventually contaminated the Alfa՚s borehole.

Since the tannery opened in 1910, until 2007, the solvent it used had been delivered in 40-gallon drums which were transported by fork lift truck and then tipped into a sump. Since 2007, solvents had been delivered in bulk and stored in tanks. It was then piped to the tanning machinery. There was no evidence of any spills from the tanks or pipes, and it was concluded that the water had been contaminated by frequent spills under the earlier system. Alfa Water brought a claim against the Tannery on the grounds of nuisance. Whether the Tannery owners are liable?

A. Yes, the escape of the solvent which contaminated the water is sufficient for making them liable.

B. No, the damage is too remote as it was not possible for the Tannery owners to reasonably foresee a spillage which would eventually lead to contamination of a water borehole so far away.

C. No, because Alfa Water Co. should have been careful in using good purifying mechanisms to ensure that the water is fit for human consumption. They cannot sniff the blame on the Tannery owners.

D. Yes, the damage is not remote as it was possible for the Tannery owners to reasonably foresee a spillage which would eventually lead to contamination of a water borehole just 3 miles away.

Developed by: