Legal Reasoning


15 Questions MCQ Test Legal Reasoning for CLAT | Legal Reasoning


Description
This mock test of Legal Reasoning for CLAT helps you for every CLAT entrance exam. This contains 15 Multiple Choice Questions for CLAT Legal Reasoning (mcq) to study with solutions a complete question bank. The solved questions answers in this Legal Reasoning quiz give you a good mix of easy questions and tough questions. CLAT students definitely take this Legal Reasoning exercise for a better result in the exam. You can find other Legal Reasoning extra questions, long questions & short questions for CLAT on EduRev as well by searching above.
QUESTION: 1

Principle 1 – Whosoever causes the death of any person by a rash or negligent act is liable to be punished for culpable homicide.

Principle 2 – Negligence refers to the gross andculpable neglect or failure to exercise reasonable careand caution against harm to either the general publicor to a particular individual.

Facts – Aayush is driving back home from a busy dayat work. He stops by at a grocery store to buy milk,eggs and strawberries. The street is a busy one, and Aayush leaves his car with the engine running,thinking that he would be able to return with the grocery in no time at all. While he was in the store,some curious children happen to notice that the car is unlocked and the engine is running. They release the handbrake while playing in the car. The car crashes into a person who was nearby, who sustains a serious head injury and subsequently dies.

Ques Can Aayush be held liable for culpable homicide?

Solution:

Aayush had left the car unattended with the engine running, despite the fact that the street was a busy one. He has been grossly negligent, and has not taken reasonable care and precaution by at least turning the engine off. Hence, he will be held liable. 
 

QUESTION: 2

Directions: Questions 2 and 3 have a common set of Principles and Facts. Answer accordingly.
Principle 1 – Whoever causes injury to another must be held liable for such injury caused.

Principle 2 – If the defendant causes an unexpected injury owing to an unforeseen and inevitable event despite taking reasonable care, it is called an inevitable accident. The defendant must have neither intended to injure the plaintiff nor had the means to avoid the injury by taking reasonable care and caution.

Facts – Apen is very fond of cats, and has a pet cat named Zsazsy, who she is extremely attached to. Zsazsy stays with Apen in the Girls’ Hostel of the college she studies in. One day, when Apen returns from class, she finds Zsazsy fighting with another stray cat. Both cats seem to be hurting each other, and Apen notices that Zsazsy has a serious cut on her nose. She immediately rushes to separate the two cats, and in the process, her umbrella hits Sonali, who is passing by. Sonali suffers a black eye and even falls down and sustains some grazes on her elbows. Apen manages to separate the fighting cats, and walks away to her room, cuddling Zsazsy in her arms. She is engrossed in assessing the seriousness of the scratch on Zsazsy’s nose, and accidently causes an oil can in her path to fall. Anna had placed the oil can outside her door, as she was in the process of greasing the hinges of her creaky door. The oil spreads across the floor. Apen notices this, but is worried about her cat, so she ignores the oil and goes away to tend to the cat’s injury. When Anna steps away from the door to test if the greasing has worked, she steps in the pool of oil, slips and falls! She sustains injuries too.

Question: Can Apen be held liable for causing injuryto Sonali?

Solution:

Apen cannot be held liable, as the defence of inevitable accident would apply. 
 

QUESTION: 3

Directions: Questions 2 and 3 have a common set of Principles and Facts. Answer accordingly.
Principle 1 – Whoever causes injury to another must be held liable for such injury caused.

Principle 2 – If the defendant causes an unexpected injury owing to an unforeseen and inevitable event despite taking reasonable care, it is called an inevitable accident. The defendant must have neither intended to injure the plaintiff nor had the means to avoid the injury by taking reasonable care and caution.

Facts – Apen is very fond of cats, and has a pet cat named Zsazsy, who she is extremely attached to. Zsazsy stays with Apen in the Girls’ Hostel of the college she studies in. One day, when Apen returns from class, she finds Zsazsy fighting with another stray cat. Both cats seem to be hurting each other, and Apen notices that Zsazsy has a serious cut on her nose. She immediately rushes to separate the two cats, and in the process, her umbrella hits Sonali, who is passing by. Sonali suffers a black eye and even falls down and sustains some grazes on her elbows. Apen manages to separate the fighting cats, and walks away to her room, cuddling Zsazsy in her arms. She is engrossed in assessing the seriousness of the scratch on Zsazsy’s nose, and accidently causes an oil can in her path to fall. Anna had placed the oil can outside her door, as she was in the process of greasing the hinges of her creaky door. The oil spreads across the floor. Apen notices this, but is worried about her cat, so she ignores the oil and goes away to tend to the cat’s injury. When Anna steps away from the door to test if the greasing has worked, she steps in the pool of oil, slips and falls! She sustains injuries too.

Que: Can Apen be held liable for Anna’s injury?

Solution:

Apen can be held liable, as she was aware that the oil had spilt, although she spilt the oil accidentally. It can be reasonably foreseen that the oil could cause someone to slip and fall, and she should have taken reasonable precautions against such harm arising out of her act. 
 

QUESTION: 4

Directios: Questions 4 – 7 are based on the same set of Principles. Answer accordingly.

Principle 1 – The Principal is liable for all acts of the agent done in the course of employment.

Principle 2 – When a servant commits a mistake while acting on behalf of his master, causing loss to the plaintiff thereby, the master will be liable for the same.

Principle 3 – Generally, the employer is not liable for torts committed by an independent contractor working for him.

Exception – The employer will be held liable for the acts of an independent contractor if he authorizes the doing of an illegal act.

Explanation – An independent contractor is one who is not under the complete direction and control of the employer.

Principle 4 – If the servant acts negligently in the performance of his duties or displays reckless behaviour, thereby causing loss to the plaintiff, the master will be held liable.

Principle 5 – If the servant does an act in defiance of an express prohibition, and the act is outside the course of employment, then the master cannot be held liable for harm arising out of such an act.

Facts – Ojaswi is an old woman who lives alone in the outskirts of the city. Every month, she has to deposit a sum of Rs. 2000 in the nearby branch of the State Bank of Shamirpet. Pranesh, her neighbour, works as a teller at that branch and offers to deposit the money for her. Trustingly, Ojaswi hands him themoney at the end of the month and asks him to deposit it in her bank account. Pranesh never gave her a receipt stating that the amount had been deposited, but made false entries in her passbook nonetheless. Six months later, it is brought to her notice that Pranesh has been misappropriating all the money. She wishes to sue the State Bank of Shamirpet and claim damages for her loss. Would the Bank be liable?

Solution:

The bank would not be liable, as Pranesh’s act of collecting the money from Ojaswi to deposit it in her account was outside the course of his employment with the bank as a teller. He had no authority to collect the money, and the Bank cannot be held responsible for acts committed outside the course of employment.

QUESTION: 5

Principle 1 – The Principal is liable for all acts of the agent done in the course of employment.

Principle 2 – When a servant commits a mistake while acting on behalf of his master, causing loss to the plaintiff thereby, the master will be liable for the same.

Principle 3 – Generally, the employer is not liable for torts committed by an independent contractor working for him.

Exception – The employer will be held liable for the acts of an independent contractor if he authorizes the doing of an illegal act.

Explanation – An independent contractor is one who is not under the complete direction and control of the employer.

Principle 4 – If the servant acts negligently in the performance of his duties or displays reckless behaviour, thereby causing loss to the plaintiff, the master will be held liable.

Principle 5 – If the servant does an act in defiance of an express prohibition, and the act is outside the course of employment, then the master cannot be held liable for harm arising out of such an act.

Facts – The South Western Railway Boardappointed porters to assist passengers inboarding the right trains, as the crowds werelarge and the railway schedules were packedduring the holiday season. Manu, a vagabondtraveler had got into the right train bound forKochi. However, the porter erroneouslythought that he had boarded the wrong trainand pulled him out and ensured that he takesanother train leaving around the same time,which stopped at Kochi, but was actuallybound for Kanyakumari. When the ticketswere being checked, Manu was caught andfined for ticketless travelling, as the ticket hepossessed was for a different train. Manuseeks to claim damages from the SouthWestern Railway Board. Would they be heldliable for the porter’s act?

Solution:

The Railway Board would be liable, as the porters employed by them are their servants, and mistakes committed by the servant wile acting for the master make the master liable for that mistake. 

QUESTION: 6

Principle 1 – The Principal is liable for all acts of the agent done in the course of employment.

Principle 2 – When a servant commits a mistake while acting on behalf of his master, causing loss to the plaintiff thereby, the master will be liable for the same.

Principle 3 – Generally, the employer is not liable for torts committed by an independent contractor working for him.

Exception – The employer will be held liable for the acts of an independent contractor if he authorizes the doing of an illegal act.

Explanation – An independent contractor is one who is not under the complete direction and control of the employer.

Principle 4 – If the servant acts negligently in the performance of his duties or displays reckless behaviour, thereby causing loss to the plaintiff, the master will be held liable.

Principle 5 – If the servant does an act in defiance of an express prohibition, and the act is outside the course of employment, then the master cannot be held liable for harm arising out of such an act.

Facts – Seashell Petroleum Co. has a large number of drivers employed under the Company, who drive petrol tankers and fill uppetrol in underground tanks at petrol bunks invarious cities. Reuben was one such driveremployed by Seashell. One day, while fillingup a tank with petrol, Reuben carelessly lightsa match, lights his cigarette, and throws theglowing splinter on the floor. A fire starts in thepetrol bunk, as a result, and severe damage iscaused to life and property. Who should beheld liable for this loss?

Solution:

Self explanatory, apply Principle 4. 

QUESTION: 7

Principle 1 – The Principal is liable for all acts of the agent done in the course of employment.

Principle 2 – When a servant commits a mistake while acting on behalf of his master, causing loss to the plaintiff thereby, the master will be liable for the same.

Principle 3 – Generally, the employer is not liable for torts committed by an independent contractor working for him.

Exception – The employer will be held liable for the acts of an independent contractor if he authorizes the doing of an illegal act.

Explanation – An independent contractor is one who is not under the complete direction and control of the employer.

Principle 4 – If the servant acts negligently in the performance of his duties or displays reckless behaviour, thereby causing loss to the plaintiff, the master will be held liable.

Principle 5 – If the servant does an act in defiance of an express prohibition, and the act is outside the course of employment, then the master cannot be held liable for harm arising out of such an act.

Facts – Fast Carz is a company that providescars for rented use in the city of New Heights.A University in the city was organising aLiterary Festival, and had to pick up and dropoff eminent guests from the airport, and hadhired a car from Zoom Carz for a period of twodays. The Company had put up two noticeson each of its cars. One of them read that nounauthorized person was allowed to take a liftin the car. The other read that the driver hadbeen told expressly, not to give lifts tounauthorized people. He was only authorizedto pick up and drop off persons as instructedby the University. On his way to the airport topick up Amit Nayar, a famous author, thedriver sees a friend on the sidewalk anddecides to give him a lift. While driving on thehighway to the airport, the driver caused anaccident due to rash and negligent driving,and the friend sustained a head injury andwas paralysed for life. Who is to be heldliable?

Solution:

The driver will be held liable here, and not the Company, as he has acted in defiance of express orders. Apply Principle 5.

QUESTION: 8

Principle – A person is entitled to exerciseself defence by using reasonable forceagainst the source of threat.

Fact – Shaw and his family lived in a largemansion in the countryside. One night, agroup of robbers broke open the door of themansion, and there was a scuffle between theoccupants of the house and the robbers.Shaw took his pistol out, loaded it, and fired ashot at one of the intruders. The shot missedthe target, but the robbers started retreatingand ran away. By this time, severalneighbours had gathered outside the gates.Shaw came out of the house in a fit of anger,and shot at the fleeing robbers, who hadmingled into the crowd of neighbours by thattime. The shot hit Mr. Beagle, and injured himseriously.

Solution:

Shaw would be held liable, as there was no threat at the time when he fired the second shot. The robbers were already fleeing. Therefore, this is not a valid exercise of self defence

QUESTION: 9

Principle – Whoever voluntarily obstructs anyperson so as to prevent that person fromproceeding in any direction in which thatperson has a right to proceed, is said towrongfully restrain that person.

Explanation – Wrongful restraint meanskeeping the man out of the place where hewishes to be or has a right to be in.

Facts – Nilav was completely against thepractice of untouchability and abhorredanyone who practiced it. He gathered a few ofthese so called ‘lower castes’ and asked themto stand in front of the vicinity temple. Nilavwanted to prevent the temple priest fromperforming a religious yatra, from fear of being“polluted”. Can Nilav be held liable for trying towrongfully restrain the pundit?

Solution:

Nilav is not liable as the priest didn’t use the road due to his own personal bias and not because of any obstruction caused by Nilav. 

QUESTION: 10

Principle – No offence is committed by aperson who, during that act, is, by reason ofintoxication, incapable of knowing the natureof the act, whether it is wrong or contrary tolaw; provided that the thing that intoxicatedhim was administered without his knowledgeor against his will.

Facts - Kamath consumed an entire bottle ofbrandy than his usual drink of vodka. On theway back to his hostel, he tried to strangle hisfriend. Would Kamath be held liable?

Solution:

Kamath had voluntarily consumed alcohol and he would be held liable for any consequent acts committed by him under the influence of the alcohol consumed. In this case, he would be held liable for attempting to strangle his friend.

QUESTION: 11

Principle – Nothing is an offence if it done inthe exercise of the right of private defence.

Explanation – Every person has a right todefend his own body, the body of another, hisown property (movable or immovable) orproperty of any other person from theft,robbery, mischief or criminal trespass or evenfrom an attempt to commit any of the aboveoffences.

Facts – Ribhu had gone on a holiday toCalcutta leaving Rohit in charge of his hostelroom. When he returned back a day earlier,Rohit mistook Ribhu to be a trespasser andbeat him hard on his head with an iron rod.Ribhu collapses on the floor and is admitted inthe hospital where he recovers.

Solution:

Rohit will not have the right to private defence as none of the conditions given in the principle are fulfilled. Ribhu had entered the premises of the hostel room and was not caught in the middle of committing any of the wrongs mentioned in the principle.

QUESTION: 12

Principle – Whoever voluntarily causes disturbance to any assembly, lawfully engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment upto one year.

Facts – A temple was being used by a particular sect of Hindus. While that sect of Hindus was performing puja, Rudresh, aHindu from another sect entered the templeand started performing his puja and payingobeisance to the Lord. This miffed the othersect of Hindus who used the temple. Theyprosecuted him for voluntarily disturbing alawful religious assembly. Decide.

Solution:

Rudresh was performing his prayers peacefully and did not disturb others. Therefore it cannot be said that he caused the disturbance.

QUESTION: 13

Directions: Questions 13 to 15 have a common set of principles and facts. Answer the questions after applying the specified principles.

Principle 1 – A person abets the doing of a thing when he instigates some person to do a thing or engages with one or more persons conspiring to do that thing, and an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy.

Principle 2 – Whoever, either prior to or at the time of commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.

Facts – Kshitij and Aakash are quarrelling, in which Aakash thrashes Kshitij mercilessly. Kshitij is humiliated and vows to take revenge from Aakash. He tells his father that he will kill Aakash. He asks his friend Deekshita to drop him to a discotheque in Shamirpet. Kshitij also purchased a dagger in a shop. His father informed his brother Dhairya but he did not take the matter seriously. After repeated calls, Dhairya reached home but till then, Kshitij had already left with Deekshita. As soon as Kshitij saw Aakash partying at a discotheque with his friends, he walked up to him and slit his throat with the dagger. A police constable was on duty and upon seeing Kshitij commit the act, did not dare stop him as he feared for his own life. When Dhairya reached the discotheque, Aakash was already dead. Dhairya drags the lifeless body of Aakash to his car and whisks him away to an undisclosed location.

Q. Can Deekshita be prosecuted for abetting to commit an offence?

Solution:

The act done by Deekshita may be said to have facilitated the offence but she cannot be held guilty unless it is proven that she had a definite intent to facilitate the crime. Deekshita had no idea that Kshitij was going to kill Aakash. 

QUESTION: 14

Principle 1 – A person abets the doing of a thing when he instigates some person to do a thing or engages with one or more persons conspiring to do that thing, and an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy.

Principle 2 – Whoever, either prior to or at the time of commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.

Facts – Kshitij and Aakash are quarrelling, in which Aakash thrashes Kshitij mercilessly. Kshitij is humiliated and vows to take revenge from Aakash. He tells his father that he will kill Aakash. He asks his friend Deekshita to drop him to a discotheque in Shamirpet. Kshitij also purchased a dagger in a shop. His father informed his brother Dhairya but he did not take the matter seriously. After repeated calls, Dhairya reached home but till then, Kshitij had already left with Deekshita. As soon as Kshitij saw Aakash partying at a discotheque with his friends, he walked up to him and slit his throat with the dagger. A police constable was on duty and upon seeing Kshitij commit the act, did not dare stop him as he feared for his own life. When Dhairya reached the discotheque, Aakash was already dead. Dhairya drags the lifeless body of Aakash to his car and whisks him away to an undisclosed location.

Q. Whether the policeman on duty can beheld guilty for abetment to commit theoffence?

Solution:

The policeman had no time to conspire with Kshitij. There was no overt act performed on his part to hold him guilty for trying to abet the commission the crime. 

QUESTION: 15

Principle 1 – A person abets the doing of a thing when he instigates some person to do a thing or engages with one or more persons conspiring to do that thing, and an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy.

Principle 2 – Whoever, either prior to or at the time of commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.

Facts – Kshitij and Aakash are quarrelling, in which Aakash thrashes Kshitij mercilessly. Kshitij is humiliated and vows to take revenge from Aakash. He tells his father that he will kill Aakash. He asks his friend Deekshita to drop him to a discotheque in Shamirpet. Kshitij also purchased a dagger in a shop. His father informed his brother Dhairya but he did not take the matter seriously. After repeated calls, Dhairya reached home but till then, Kshitij had already left with Deekshita. As soon as Kshitij saw Aakash partying at a discotheque with his friends, he walked up to him and slit his throat with the dagger. A police constable was on duty and upon seeing Kshitij commit the act, did not dare stop him as he feared for his own life. When Dhairya reached the discotheque, Aakash was already dead. Dhairya drags the lifeless body of Aakash to his car and whisks him away to an undisclosed location.

Q. Whether Dhairya is guilty of abetting tocommit the offence of slitting Aakash’sthroat?

Solution:

Dhairya helped Aakash only after the crime was committed. Aiding after commission of offence is dealt with under a separate section in the IPC. 

Related tests