Common Law and the Consumer — Duty of Care and Liability for Negligence — MCQs

All questions with answers and explanations

Read the full set here, or use the practice card above to test yourself one question at a time.

1. Before any consumer-specific statute existed, which tort was the primary remedy available to a consumer injured by a defective product or careless service?

   • Breach of contract only
   • The tort of negligence (correct answer)
   • Criminal prosecution for cheating
   • Trespass to goods

   Explanation. Before consumer-specific legislation, an injured consumer's only real remedy was the tort of negligence — proving a duty of care, breach, and resulting damage.

2. What barrier did the doctrine of privity of contract traditionally create for an injured consumer?

   • It prevented any tort claim from being filed
   • It barred a claim against anyone except the person the consumer had directly contracted with (correct answer)
   • It required all claims to be filed within 30 days
   • It made manufacturers automatically liable

   Explanation. Privity of contract meant a buyer generally had no claim against a manufacturer or other party they had no direct contract with, even if that party's carelessness caused the harm.

3. In Donoghue v. Stevenson, what did the House of Lords hold about a manufacturer's duty of care?

   • It exists only where there is a direct contract with the consumer
   • It exists independently of any contract, once the product is meant to reach the consumer unexamined (correct answer)
   • It applies only to food and beverage manufacturers
   • It cannot be owed to a person who did not personally purchase the product

   Explanation. The House of Lords held that a manufacturer's duty of care to the ultimate consumer exists independently of contract, removing privity as a bar to a negligence claim.

4. In Cassidy v. Ministry of Health, the Ministry relied on an older, narrower view of hospital liability. Which test did the Court of Appeal move away from?

   • The reasonable foreseeability test
   • The narrow 'control' test of master-servant relationship (correct answer)
   • The 'but for' causation test
   • The remoteness of damage test

   Explanation. The older view was that a hospital was not necessarily vicariously liable for skilled professionals exercising independent judgment. The Court of Appeal held it liable for doctors, surgeons and nurses employed on a permanent basis and integrated into its organisation.

5. In Cassidy v. Ministry of Health, why was the hospital held liable even though it did not control how the doctors exercised their skill?

   • Because it had signed a separate indemnity contract
   • Because its doctors, surgeons and nurses were employed on a permanent basis and integrated into its organisation, so it answered for them like any employer (correct answer)
   • Because the doctors were technically government employees
   • Because the patient had paid the full treatment cost in advance

   Explanation. A hospital authority is vicariously liable for the negligence of the doctors, surgeons and nurses it employs on a permanent basis and who are integrated into its organisation, in the same way any employer answers for its employees.

6. Why does 'deficiency in service' under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 so often overlap with the common-law tort of negligence?

   • Because both require proof of fraud
   • Because a service is deficient precisely when it falls below the standard of care the common law already requires in that trade or profession (correct answer)
   • Because deficiency claims can only be filed in civil courts, not consumer forums
   • Because negligence and deficiency are unrelated legal concepts

   Explanation. Statutory 'deficiency in service' is, in substance, the same failure to meet a reasonable standard of care that the common law already recognised as negligence.

7. How is the standard of care measured in a professional-negligence claim against, say, a doctor or a banker?

   • Against the standard of an ordinary layperson
   • Against the standard of a reasonably competent member of that particular trade or profession (correct answer)
   • Against the highest possible standard achievable in that field
   • There is no fixed standard; it is decided case by case with no benchmark

   Explanation. The standard of care in professional negligence is always measured against a reasonably competent member of that specific trade or profession, not an ordinary person or the highest conceivable standard.

8. What is the modern statutory concept that traces its logic directly back to the common-law removal of privity of contract in Donoghue v. Stevenson?

   • Restrictive trade practice
   • Product liability (correct answer)
   • Continuous cause of action
   • Mediation

   Explanation. Product liability — holding a manufacturer responsible for harm from a defective product without requiring a direct contract with the injured consumer — descends directly from the common-law reasoning in Donoghue v. Stevenson.

9. Why was the Consumer Protection Act still needed even though the common-law tort of negligence already protected consumers?

   • Because negligence law recognised no right for consumers at all
   • Because ordinary civil litigation was too slow, formal, and expensive for typical, modest consumer claims (correct answer)
   • Because negligence law applied only outside India
   • Because courts refused to hear any case involving a consumer

   Explanation. The common law already recognised the underlying right; the Act was needed to give that right a summary, inexpensive, and speedy procedural mechanism suited to typical consumer claims.

10. A patient suffers permanent injury due to careless post-operative nursing at a hospital, though the operating surgeon performed competently. Applying Cassidy v. Ministry of Health, is the hospital liable?

    • No, because the surgeon (a doctor) was not negligent
    • Yes, because the nurses were employed by the hospital and integrated into its organisation, so it answers for their negligence like any employer (correct answer)
    • No, because nurses are never covered by hospital liability
    • Yes, but only if the patient paid privately and not through insurance

    Explanation. Under Cassidy, a hospital authority is vicariously liable for the negligence of nurses it employs and who are integrated into its organisation, even if the surgeon was not at fault.