Question Description
Principle 1 – If an act is done intentionally, the person committing the act would be held liable irrespective of the motive behind the act.Principle 2 - Where it can reasonably be foreseen that an act would cause harm to the person or property of another, the person committing such act will be held liable for acting negligently.Principle 3 – An act committed without intention, accidentally or involuntarily, does not give rise to liability.Facts – Simon was greatly interested in photography, and decided to take a walk in the woods, so he may engage in some wildlife photography. Seeing a butterfly on a bunch of flowers, he kneels behind a bush to get a close shot of it. In the meantime, Adams, who was in the woods to practice shooting, pulls his trigger to shoot a bird. However, he misses his aim, and the dart ricochets off the tree and hits Simon, causing injury to him. In the shock of the moment, Simon lets his expensive camera drop, and the camera is broken. Simon wishes to sue Adams for injury to his person, and for the damage to the camera.a).Simon will succeed, as Adam‘s act was negligent and he should have foreseen that the shooting dart would hit someone else.b)Simon will succeed, as Adam must have acted intentionally to sabotage his photography.c)Adams did not intend to shoot at Simon, but the act was accidental and unforeseeable. So,he would not be held liable for the injury sustained by Simon or for the breakage of the camera.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Principle 1 – If an act is done intentionally, the person committing the act would be held liable irrespective of the motive behind the act.Principle 2 - Where it can reasonably be foreseen that an act would cause harm to the person or property of another, the person committing such act will be held liable for acting negligently.Principle 3 – An act committed without intention, accidentally or involuntarily, does not give rise to liability.Facts – Simon was greatly interested in photography, and decided to take a walk in the woods, so he may engage in some wildlife photography. Seeing a butterfly on a bunch of flowers, he kneels behind a bush to get a close shot of it. In the meantime, Adams, who was in the woods to practice shooting, pulls his trigger to shoot a bird. However, he misses his aim, and the dart ricochets off the tree and hits Simon, causing injury to him. In the shock of the moment, Simon lets his expensive camera drop, and the camera is broken. Simon wishes to sue Adams for injury to his person, and for the damage to the camera.a).Simon will succeed, as Adam‘s act was negligent and he should have foreseen that the shooting dart would hit someone else.b)Simon will succeed, as Adam must have acted intentionally to sabotage his photography.c)Adams did not intend to shoot at Simon, but the act was accidental and unforeseeable. So,he would not be held liable for the injury sustained by Simon or for the breakage of the camera.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Principle 1 – If an act is done intentionally, the person committing the act would be held liable irrespective of the motive behind the act.Principle 2 - Where it can reasonably be foreseen that an act would cause harm to the person or property of another, the person committing such act will be held liable for acting negligently.Principle 3 – An act committed without intention, accidentally or involuntarily, does not give rise to liability.Facts – Simon was greatly interested in photography, and decided to take a walk in the woods, so he may engage in some wildlife photography. Seeing a butterfly on a bunch of flowers, he kneels behind a bush to get a close shot of it. In the meantime, Adams, who was in the woods to practice shooting, pulls his trigger to shoot a bird. However, he misses his aim, and the dart ricochets off the tree and hits Simon, causing injury to him. In the shock of the moment, Simon lets his expensive camera drop, and the camera is broken. Simon wishes to sue Adams for injury to his person, and for the damage to the camera.a).Simon will succeed, as Adam‘s act was negligent and he should have foreseen that the shooting dart would hit someone else.b)Simon will succeed, as Adam must have acted intentionally to sabotage his photography.c)Adams did not intend to shoot at Simon, but the act was accidental and unforeseeable. So,he would not be held liable for the injury sustained by Simon or for the breakage of the camera.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Principle 1 – If an act is done intentionally, the person committing the act would be held liable irrespective of the motive behind the act.Principle 2 - Where it can reasonably be foreseen that an act would cause harm to the person or property of another, the person committing such act will be held liable for acting negligently.Principle 3 – An act committed without intention, accidentally or involuntarily, does not give rise to liability.Facts – Simon was greatly interested in photography, and decided to take a walk in the woods, so he may engage in some wildlife photography. Seeing a butterfly on a bunch of flowers, he kneels behind a bush to get a close shot of it. In the meantime, Adams, who was in the woods to practice shooting, pulls his trigger to shoot a bird. However, he misses his aim, and the dart ricochets off the tree and hits Simon, causing injury to him. In the shock of the moment, Simon lets his expensive camera drop, and the camera is broken. Simon wishes to sue Adams for injury to his person, and for the damage to the camera.a).Simon will succeed, as Adam‘s act was negligent and he should have foreseen that the shooting dart would hit someone else.b)Simon will succeed, as Adam must have acted intentionally to sabotage his photography.c)Adams did not intend to shoot at Simon, but the act was accidental and unforeseeable. So,he would not be held liable for the injury sustained by Simon or for the breakage of the camera.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Principle 1 – If an act is done intentionally, the person committing the act would be held liable irrespective of the motive behind the act.Principle 2 - Where it can reasonably be foreseen that an act would cause harm to the person or property of another, the person committing such act will be held liable for acting negligently.Principle 3 – An act committed without intention, accidentally or involuntarily, does not give rise to liability.Facts – Simon was greatly interested in photography, and decided to take a walk in the woods, so he may engage in some wildlife photography. Seeing a butterfly on a bunch of flowers, he kneels behind a bush to get a close shot of it. In the meantime, Adams, who was in the woods to practice shooting, pulls his trigger to shoot a bird. However, he misses his aim, and the dart ricochets off the tree and hits Simon, causing injury to him. In the shock of the moment, Simon lets his expensive camera drop, and the camera is broken. Simon wishes to sue Adams for injury to his person, and for the damage to the camera.a).Simon will succeed, as Adam‘s act was negligent and he should have foreseen that the shooting dart would hit someone else.b)Simon will succeed, as Adam must have acted intentionally to sabotage his photography.c)Adams did not intend to shoot at Simon, but the act was accidental and unforeseeable. So,he would not be held liable for the injury sustained by Simon or for the breakage of the camera.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Principle 1 – If an act is done intentionally, the person committing the act would be held liable irrespective of the motive behind the act.Principle 2 - Where it can reasonably be foreseen that an act would cause harm to the person or property of another, the person committing such act will be held liable for acting negligently.Principle 3 – An act committed without intention, accidentally or involuntarily, does not give rise to liability.Facts – Simon was greatly interested in photography, and decided to take a walk in the woods, so he may engage in some wildlife photography. Seeing a butterfly on a bunch of flowers, he kneels behind a bush to get a close shot of it. In the meantime, Adams, who was in the woods to practice shooting, pulls his trigger to shoot a bird. However, he misses his aim, and the dart ricochets off the tree and hits Simon, causing injury to him. In the shock of the moment, Simon lets his expensive camera drop, and the camera is broken. Simon wishes to sue Adams for injury to his person, and for the damage to the camera.a).Simon will succeed, as Adam‘s act was negligent and he should have foreseen that the shooting dart would hit someone else.b)Simon will succeed, as Adam must have acted intentionally to sabotage his photography.c)Adams did not intend to shoot at Simon, but the act was accidental and unforeseeable. So,he would not be held liable for the injury sustained by Simon or for the breakage of the camera.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Principle 1 – If an act is done intentionally, the person committing the act would be held liable irrespective of the motive behind the act.Principle 2 - Where it can reasonably be foreseen that an act would cause harm to the person or property of another, the person committing such act will be held liable for acting negligently.Principle 3 – An act committed without intention, accidentally or involuntarily, does not give rise to liability.Facts – Simon was greatly interested in photography, and decided to take a walk in the woods, so he may engage in some wildlife photography. Seeing a butterfly on a bunch of flowers, he kneels behind a bush to get a close shot of it. In the meantime, Adams, who was in the woods to practice shooting, pulls his trigger to shoot a bird. However, he misses his aim, and the dart ricochets off the tree and hits Simon, causing injury to him. In the shock of the moment, Simon lets his expensive camera drop, and the camera is broken. Simon wishes to sue Adams for injury to his person, and for the damage to the camera.a).Simon will succeed, as Adam‘s act was negligent and he should have foreseen that the shooting dart would hit someone else.b)Simon will succeed, as Adam must have acted intentionally to sabotage his photography.c)Adams did not intend to shoot at Simon, but the act was accidental and unforeseeable. So,he would not be held liable for the injury sustained by Simon or for the breakage of the camera.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Principle 1 – If an act is done intentionally, the person committing the act would be held liable irrespective of the motive behind the act.Principle 2 - Where it can reasonably be foreseen that an act would cause harm to the person or property of another, the person committing such act will be held liable for acting negligently.Principle 3 – An act committed without intention, accidentally or involuntarily, does not give rise to liability.Facts – Simon was greatly interested in photography, and decided to take a walk in the woods, so he may engage in some wildlife photography. Seeing a butterfly on a bunch of flowers, he kneels behind a bush to get a close shot of it. In the meantime, Adams, who was in the woods to practice shooting, pulls his trigger to shoot a bird. However, he misses his aim, and the dart ricochets off the tree and hits Simon, causing injury to him. In the shock of the moment, Simon lets his expensive camera drop, and the camera is broken. Simon wishes to sue Adams for injury to his person, and for the damage to the camera.a).Simon will succeed, as Adam‘s act was negligent and he should have foreseen that the shooting dart would hit someone else.b)Simon will succeed, as Adam must have acted intentionally to sabotage his photography.c)Adams did not intend to shoot at Simon, but the act was accidental and unforeseeable. So,he would not be held liable for the injury sustained by Simon or for the breakage of the camera.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Principle 1 – If an act is done intentionally, the person committing the act would be held liable irrespective of the motive behind the act.Principle 2 - Where it can reasonably be foreseen that an act would cause harm to the person or property of another, the person committing such act will be held liable for acting negligently.Principle 3 – An act committed without intention, accidentally or involuntarily, does not give rise to liability.Facts – Simon was greatly interested in photography, and decided to take a walk in the woods, so he may engage in some wildlife photography. Seeing a butterfly on a bunch of flowers, he kneels behind a bush to get a close shot of it. In the meantime, Adams, who was in the woods to practice shooting, pulls his trigger to shoot a bird. However, he misses his aim, and the dart ricochets off the tree and hits Simon, causing injury to him. In the shock of the moment, Simon lets his expensive camera drop, and the camera is broken. Simon wishes to sue Adams for injury to his person, and for the damage to the camera.a).Simon will succeed, as Adam‘s act was negligent and he should have foreseen that the shooting dart would hit someone else.b)Simon will succeed, as Adam must have acted intentionally to sabotage his photography.c)Adams did not intend to shoot at Simon, but the act was accidental and unforeseeable. So,he would not be held liable for the injury sustained by Simon or for the breakage of the camera.d)None of the above.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.