6-Minute Test: Law of Torts - CLAT MCQ

To prove negligence, Ms. Kaur must establish that Mr. Yadav owed her a duty of care (e.g., to secure equipment to prevent harm to nearby residents), breached it (by leaving equipment unsecured), caused the garden damage, and resulted in damages (₹3 lakh). Option A correctly identifies the duty of care as a key element. Option B is incorrect, as vicarious liability holds Mr. Verma liable for Mr. Yadav’s actions. Option C contradicts the scenario (garden was damaged). Option D (act of God) is a defence, not an element of negligence, and the storm doesn’t fully excuse the negligence.

Nuisance, as per the passage, involves unreasonable interference with property enjoyment. Ms. Kaur’s claim is based on construction noise disturbing her family’s peace. Option A (construction permit) is irrelevant. Option C (compliance with regulations) would weaken the claim. Option D (economic benefits) is not pertinent to nuisance.

Vicarious liability, as stated in the passage, holds Mr. Verma liable for Mr. Yadav’s negligence during employment. Option A (strict liability) applies to inherently dangerous activities, not general construction. Option B (res ipsa loquitur) is an evidentiary principle, not liability. Option D (absolute privilege) relates to defamation, not negligence.

The passage explains that res ipsa loquitur applies when harm suggests obvious negligence, shifting the burden to the defendant (Mr. Verma) to disprove it. Option C is correct. Option A (Ms. Kaur proving all elements) describes standard negligence, not res ipsa loquitur. Option B is similar to C but less precise, as the burden specifically shifts to disprove negligence. Option D (case dismissal) is incorrect, as the principle aids the plaintiff’s case.

If Ms. Kaur’s failure to reinforce her fence contributed to the damage, contributory negligence may reduce Mr. Verma’s liability by apportioning fault. Option A (eliminates liability) is incorrect, as Mr. Yadav’s negligence remains. Option B (strengthens nuisance claim) is irrelevant, as the fence issue pertains to negligence. Option C (no impact) ignores the contributory negligence defence.