CLAT

Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.

The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.

The term 'negligence' means the act of being careless and in the legal sense, it signifies the failure to exercise a standard of care which the doer, as a reasonable man, should have exercised in a particular situation. Negligence in English law is emerged as an independent cause of action only in the 18^th century. Similarly, the Indian law, the IPC, 1860, contained no provision for causing the death of a person by negligence which was subsequently amended in the year 1870 by inserting Section 304A.
According to Winfield and Jolowicz, negligence is the breach of a legal duty of care by the plaintiff which results in undesired damage to the plaintiff. In general sense, the extent of liability in tort is determined by the number of damages a party has incurred. Consequently, in criminal law, the extent of liability is determined by the amount and degree of negligence.
Negligence can be characterised in three forms: Nonfeasance, means the act of failure to do something which a person should have done; Misfeasance, means the act of not doing an action properly when it should have been done properly; Malfeasance, means the act of doing something which should not have been done in the first place itself.
To commit the tort of negligence, there are primarily six main essentials that are required. An act will be categorised as negligence only if all the conditions are satisfied. Duty of care is one of the essential conditions of negligence in order to make the person liable.
It means that every person owes a duty of care to another person while performing an act. Although this duty exists in all acts, in negligence, the duty is legal in nature and cannot be illegal or unlawful and also cannot be of moral, ethical, or religious nature. A duty arises when the law recognises a relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff, and requires the defendant to act in a certain manner towards the plaintiff. It is not sufficient that the defendant owed a duty of care towards the plaintiff, but it must also be established which is usually determined by the judge. It's not enough for a plaintiff to prove that the defendant owed him a duty of care, but he must also establish that the defendant breached his duty to the plaintiff. A defendant breaches such a duty by failing to exercise reasonable care in fulfilling the duty. The plaintiff who is suing the defendant for negligence has the liability to prove that the defendant's violation of duty was the actual cause of the damages incurred by him. This is often called the "but-for" causation which means that but for the defendant's actions, the plaintiff would not have incurred the damages. Proximate cause means 'legal cause', or the cause that the law recognises as the primary cause of the injury. It may not be the first event that set in motion a sequence of events that led to an injury, and it may not be the very last event before the injury occurs.

Q. Snowy, owner of a big german shepherd dog, requests his cousin Arnold to take care of the dog while he is away. Arnold leaves the dog unattended who attacks a passerby, badly injuring him. Who would be held liable for the negligence?

Read the passage below and answer the question.

The Supreme Court has taken a timely decision by agreeing to hear a plea from the Election Commission of India (ECI) to direct political parties to not field candidates with criminal antecedents. The immediate provocation is the finding that 46% of Members of Parliament have criminal records. While the number might be inflated as many politicians tend to be charged with relatively minor offences — "unlawful assembly" and "defamation" — the real worry is that the current cohort of Lok Sabha MPs has the highest (29%) proportion of those with serious declared criminal cases compared to its recent predecessors. Researchers have found that such candidates with serious records seem to do well despite their public image, largely due to their ability to finance their own elections and bring substantive resources to their respective parties. Some voters tend to view such candidates through a narrow prism: of being able to represent their interests by hook or by crook. Others do not seek to punish these candidates in instances where they are in contest with other candidates with similar records. Either way, these unhealthy tendencies in the democratic system reflect a poor image of the nature of India's state institutions and the quality of its elected representatives.

Q. If the author's arguments in the given passage are true, which of the following must also be true?

Read the given passage and answer the question that follows.

Poverty measurement is an unsettled issue, both conceptually and methodologically. Since poverty is a process as well as an outcome; many come out of it while others may be falling into it. The net effect of these two parallel processes Is a proportion commonly identified as the ‘head count ratio’, but these ratios hide the fundamental dynamism that characterises poverty in practice. The most recent poverty reestimates by an expert group has also missed the crucial dynamism. In a study conducted on 13.000 households which represented the entire country in 1993-94 and again on 2004-05. it was found that in the ten-year period 18.2% rural population moved out of poverty whereas another 22.1% fell into it over this period. This net increase of about four percentage points was seen to have a considerable variation across states and regions.

Q. Which of following is an assumption which is implicit in the facts stated in the above paragraph?

Read the information given below carefully and answer the following question.

''The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.''

Murder, this term traces its origin from the Germanic word 'morth' where it means secret killing. Murder means when one person is killed with an intent of another person with malice or forethought. Moreover, an offence will not amount to murder, unless it includes an offence which falls under the definition of culpable homicide. To broadly explain, we can say that murder is a species where culpable homicide is a genus. Murder consists of four main components which can also be known as essentials of murder, before going in-depth with essentials, here are the core concepts discussed: culpable homicide amounts to murder, except in some cases wherein the act, which caused murder, should be done with an intention to cause death or such intention of causing death should cause a bodily injury to that person or if such intention of causing death causes a bodily injury and that bodily injury must have caused the death of that person or he must have the knowledge that the act he has done is immediately dangerous in all probable sense to cause death or a bodily injury that is likely to cause death of a person. And it is a crime to commit an act, even after knowing that the act he does is a risk of causing death or such injury as discussed above.

In a case, Milmadhub Sirchar Vs. R (1885), the deceased was kicked and beaten several times by the offender, even after the victim falling senseless. Court held that the murderer would have known that beating and kicking several times would surely result in the death of such person. Thus, he was accused of murder. In other case, Sheik Choollye Vs. R (1865), a person got his head fractured after a man struck his head with a stick while he was asleep. Court held that the offender should have known the likelihood to causing death to that person. And thus, he was convicted for murder. Thirdly, if the act done by the offender is done with an intention to cause any bodily injury as it is sufficient in normal sense to result in death of that person - the subjective factor ends with the fact that in any ordinary course of action, if a person acts to kill or harm a person with full knowledge of causing a bodily injury which is sufficient to cause death of such person. There is no need of any further inquiry in this context. In the case of Visra Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1958), the SC ruled that when the offender fails to prove that the act was done accidentally or unintentionally, then Court might charge him with that offence and hence, the presumption is that he would have intended to act to cause a deadly injury to the victim of such crime.

Q. Bill, the don, was escaping from the police lock-up. As he was running, he came to a dead end. The inspector took out his gun and asked Bill to surrender. But, Bill refused and instead started shooting. The inspector had no way out, so he started shooting and eventually killed Bill. Now, Bill's relatives want to charge the inspector with murder. Decide.

Passage: After the ―Liberal a new catchphrase is being coined: ‘A New Health Order’. Talking about setting it up is the theme of the WHOsponsored international conference on primary health and medical care, currently being held at Milan in Italy. While much has been said and written on establishing ―new order, little has actually been done. Will the conference at Milan too swear by the ―new health order, go home and then forget about it, while the present medical and healthcare set-up in poor countries further entrenches itself? This does not have to be the fate of the radical resolutions that will undoubtedly be passed at Milan. Unlike creating a new world economic or information order, establishing a new health set-up is essentially a matter for individual countries to accomplish. No conflict of international interests is involved. But this advantage is, at least until it begins to take concrete shape, only theoretical. The million- dollar question is whether individual third- world governments are able and willing to muster the will, the resources, the administrative and other infrastructure to carry out what it is entirely within their power to attain and implement. The dimensions of the problem are known and the solutions broadly agreed on. The present medical and health-care system is urban- base, closely geared to drugs, hospitals and expensively trained apathetic doctors. The bulk of the population in poor countries, who live in rural areas, are left untouched by all this and must rely on traditional healers.
The answer is to turn out medical/health personnel sufficiently, but not expensively, trained to handle routine complaints and to get villagers to pay adequate attention to cleanliness, hygienic sanitation, garbage disposal and other elementary but crucial matters. More complicated ailments can be referred to properly equipped centres in district towns, cities and metropolises. Traditional healers, whom villagers trust, can be among these intermediate personnel.
Some third-world countries, including India, have launched or are preparing elaborate schemes of this nature. But the experience is not quite happy. There is resistance from the medical establishment which sees them as little more than licensed quackery but is to prepared either to offer condensed medical courses such as the former licentiate course available in this country and unwisely scrapped. There is the question of how much importance to give to indigenous system of medicine. And there is the difficult matter of striking the right balance between preventive healthcare and curative medical attention.
These are complex issues and the Milan conference would perhaps be more fruitful if it were to discuss such specific subjects.
Directions: Choose the word which is most nearly OPPOSITE in meaning of the word printed in bold as used in the passage.

Q. CONDENSED

Passage: By February of last year, Victoria Reiter, 63, figured she had only a few months to live. A writer and translator living in Manhattan, she was suffering from chronic myeloid leukemia, an especially deadly form of blood cancer. The only treatment available was interferon, an immune system booster that wasn‘t really working and that made her violently ill. Reiter had spent most of 1999 in bed, too sick to read, to walk, to do much of anything-although she had managed to put together lists dividing her possessions between her two daughters. Then she went on an experimental drug called Gleevec, and within weeks everything changed. ―All my energy started coming back, ‖she says. ―Suddenly I could read. I could take a walk.-By August, tests showed her bone marrow was clear of leukemia cells; in December, she took up the Argentine tango. She still has the lists of what her daughters will get, but, she exults, ―They‘re not going to get it yet! -For Bob Ferber, a Los Angeles prosecutor specializing in animal-abuse cases, the Gleevec experience was very much the same. Less than two years ago, he was lying in a hospital room considering suicide to escape the pain radiating from his bones. ―From crawling across the floor on my knees to go to the bathroom, I‘m now back at work, -says Ferber, 48. ―I go to the gym. I‘m volunteering for an animal-rescue group. It‘s the dream of any cancer patient in the world to be able to take a pill that works like this. It‘s truly a miracle.-That‘s a tempting way to look at it, anyhow. Gleevec is so effective that the US Food and Drug Administration approved it in record time two weeks ago-even as researchers announced that it also works against a rare form of stomach cancer. The drug doesn‘t help everyone, and it can have side-effects, including nausea, muscle cramps and skin rash. Moreover, nobody is claiming that it actually cures cancer. Patients may have to continue taking the drug, probably for the rest of their lives, and unless Gleevec likely their cancer will come back. Despite all these caveats, Gleevec is still a breakthrough-not only for what it does but, more important, for the revolutionary strategy it represents. A full 50 years have passed since the leaders of developed countries declared war on cancer and called for a national commitment comparable to the effort to land on the moon or split the atom. But over decades, researchers have come up with one potential miracle cure after another-only to suffer one disappointment after another. Aside from surgery, which almost invariably leaves behind some malignant cells, the standard treatment for most cancers continues to be radiation and chemotherapy-relatively crude disease-fighting weapons that have limited effectiveness and leave patients weak and nauseated. Along the way, though, scientists have amassed wealth of information about how cancer works at the molecular level, from its first awakening in the aberrant DNA of a single cell‘s nucleus to it rapacious, all-out assault on the body. Armed with that information, they have been developing a broad array of weapons to attack the disease every step along the way. Many of these therapies are just beginning to reach clinical trials and won‘t be available to save lives for years to come. If you have cancer today, these treatments are likely to come too late to help you. But, says Dr Larry Norton, a medical director at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City: ―I think there is no question that the war on cancer is winnable.-That sentiment was pounded home last week at the animal meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in San Francisco, where a record 26,000 cancer specialists from around the world briefed each other on the good news starting to pour out of their laboratories. Unlike chemo and radiation, which use carpet-bombing tactics that destroy cancer cells and troop of snipers, firing on cancer cells alone and targeting their weakest links.

Q. The author has given the example of Bob Ferber in order to 

Passage: Since July 1991, the government of India has effectively put the liberalization policy into proactive. The drastic steps even include some administrative reforms for pruning the government agencies. Last year the Japanese business circles represented by the Ishikawa Mission called attention of their Indian counterparts to what they considered to be the major impediments in India.
However, thanks to the almost revolutionary reforms put into effect by the Indian government, those impediments either have been removed or now are on their way out. This development gives a new hope for the future of economic co-operation between the two countries. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that there is a stiff competition with other countries, notably China and South-East Asian countries, in this regard. The success stories of ASEAN countries welcoming Japanese investments with adequate infrastructure are already known in India but it may be useful if further studies of Japanese joint ventures in ASEAN countries be made by Indian business circles. The coastal areas of China have initiated a very active campaign to welcome foreign economic participation. Beyond our bilateral relationship, India‘s more active participation in global economy is needed.
India certainly deserves a far bigger share of world trade considering its vast resources. It is strongly hoped that the Indian government‘s recently initiated effort of enlarging its export mart would bear fruit. India has steadfastly maintained its parliamentary democracy since independence. Considering its size, its population and its internal complexity, the overall maintenance of national integrity and political stability under parliamentary democracy is remarkable and admirable indeed. Here lies the base for the status of India in the world. By effectively implementing its economic reform with the support of public opinion, this democratic polity of India has again demonstrated its viability and resilience. At the same time, it gives hope and inspiration to the whole world which faces the difficult problem of North-South confrontation.

Q. The author feels that India has a better status in the world market because of its

Read the passage below and answer the question.

Amid the horror provoked by the deaths of 100 children in the month of December at the J K Lon Government Hospital in Kota, Rajasthan, Chief Minister Ashok Gehlot has sought to shift the blame on to his predecessor, Vasundhara Raje, insisting that the issue must not be politicised.
The hospital authorities have claimed that the high rate of mortality is because J K Lon, being the only public referral hospital for children in Kota division, receives a large number of critical cases from a vast area. While in a report to the Kota Government Medical College, the Paediatrics Department of the hospital had claimed that most of the equipment is functional and none of the patients died due to lack of resources, the secretary, Medical Education Department, Rajasthan, has admitted to several problems, including improper maintenance of equipment and shortage of oxygen lines. The hospital has also reported a 30 per cent shortage of nursing staff. Anecdotal evidence has pointed to the callousness and insensitivity of the hospital staff to the concerns of the patients.

Q. Which of the following can be inferred from the context?

Directions : Study the following information carefully and answer the questions given below:

M, T, J, R, D, W and Q are seven friends traveling in three cars – X, Y and Z with at least two persons in each car. There are three female members among them with at least one in each car. T travels only with her boyfriend Q in car Y. M travels in his car X. D, a male and W does not travel in car Z. J is not a female member and W is a female.

Q.
In which car do three of them travel?