Question Description
Directions: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 following is an extract from the judgement of the Honble Orissa High Court in A. Krishna Patra Vs. Orissa State Electricity Board [AIR 1997 Ori 109].While considering the question of inevitable accident or an act of God, it will be useful to reproduce a passage from the Law of Torts, by Justice G. P. Singh."All causes of inevitable accidents may be divided into two classes.(1) Those which are occasioned by the elementary forces of nature unconnected with the agency of man or other cause and(2) Those which have their origin either in the whole or in part in the agency of man, whether in acts of commission or omission, non-feasance or mis-feasance or in any other causes independent of the agency of natural forces. The term act of God is applicable to the former class."An inevitable accident is an event which happens not only without the concurrence of the will of the man, but in spite of all efforts on his part to prevent it. It means, an accident physically unavoidable is something which cannot be prevented by human skill or foresight.An act of God is an inevitable or unavoidable accident without the intervention of the man, some casualty which the human foresight could not discern and from the consequence of which no human protection could be provided. This is not a case where the incident was due to unexpected operation of natural forces free from human intervention which no reasonable human foresight could be presumed to anticipate its occurrence or to prevent it.As a reference was made to the case of Rylands Vs. Fletcher, in which the defendants had constructed a reservoir upon their land, in order to supply water to their mill. On the site that was chosen for the reservoir, there existed some shafts of a coal mine, which was not in use. However, the passages also led to the adjoining mine which was owned by the plaintiff. This, however, was not discovered at the time of construction with the result that when the reservoir was filled, the water went down to the shaft and flooded the plaintiffs mine. Under these facts, the plaintiff instituted a suit for damages and succeeded. Dismissing the defendants appeal, following was held by the House of Lords."We think that the true rule of law is that the person who for his own purposes brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep in at his peril and if he does not do so is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. He can excuse himself by showing that the escape was owing to the plaintiffs default or perhaps, that the escape was the consequence of vis major or the act of God, but as nothing of this sort exists here, it is unnecessary to enquire what excuse would be sufficient."Q.From the reference given above in the accompanying passage, choose the statement which best defines the concept of inevitable accident and act of God.a)An inevitable accident, without any human intervention is called an act of God.b)An inevitable accident, to the consequences of which some human protection could be provided is called an act of God.c)An inevitable accident, which has been caused due to elementary forces of nature without any human involvement is called an act of God.d)An inevitable accident is also called an act of God.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: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 following is an extract from the judgement of the Honble Orissa High Court in A. Krishna Patra Vs. Orissa State Electricity Board [AIR 1997 Ori 109].While considering the question of inevitable accident or an act of God, it will be useful to reproduce a passage from the Law of Torts, by Justice G. P. Singh."All causes of inevitable accidents may be divided into two classes.(1) Those which are occasioned by the elementary forces of nature unconnected with the agency of man or other cause and(2) Those which have their origin either in the whole or in part in the agency of man, whether in acts of commission or omission, non-feasance or mis-feasance or in any other causes independent of the agency of natural forces. The term act of God is applicable to the former class."An inevitable accident is an event which happens not only without the concurrence of the will of the man, but in spite of all efforts on his part to prevent it. It means, an accident physically unavoidable is something which cannot be prevented by human skill or foresight.An act of God is an inevitable or unavoidable accident without the intervention of the man, some casualty which the human foresight could not discern and from the consequence of which no human protection could be provided. This is not a case where the incident was due to unexpected operation of natural forces free from human intervention which no reasonable human foresight could be presumed to anticipate its occurrence or to prevent it.As a reference was made to the case of Rylands Vs. Fletcher, in which the defendants had constructed a reservoir upon their land, in order to supply water to their mill. On the site that was chosen for the reservoir, there existed some shafts of a coal mine, which was not in use. However, the passages also led to the adjoining mine which was owned by the plaintiff. This, however, was not discovered at the time of construction with the result that when the reservoir was filled, the water went down to the shaft and flooded the plaintiffs mine. Under these facts, the plaintiff instituted a suit for damages and succeeded. Dismissing the defendants appeal, following was held by the House of Lords."We think that the true rule of law is that the person who for his own purposes brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep in at his peril and if he does not do so is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. He can excuse himself by showing that the escape was owing to the plaintiffs default or perhaps, that the escape was the consequence of vis major or the act of God, but as nothing of this sort exists here, it is unnecessary to enquire what excuse would be sufficient."Q.From the reference given above in the accompanying passage, choose the statement which best defines the concept of inevitable accident and act of God.a)An inevitable accident, without any human intervention is called an act of God.b)An inevitable accident, to the consequences of which some human protection could be provided is called an act of God.c)An inevitable accident, which has been caused due to elementary forces of nature without any human involvement is called an act of God.d)An inevitable accident is also called an act of God.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: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 following is an extract from the judgement of the Honble Orissa High Court in A. Krishna Patra Vs. Orissa State Electricity Board [AIR 1997 Ori 109].While considering the question of inevitable accident or an act of God, it will be useful to reproduce a passage from the Law of Torts, by Justice G. P. Singh."All causes of inevitable accidents may be divided into two classes.(1) Those which are occasioned by the elementary forces of nature unconnected with the agency of man or other cause and(2) Those which have their origin either in the whole or in part in the agency of man, whether in acts of commission or omission, non-feasance or mis-feasance or in any other causes independent of the agency of natural forces. The term act of God is applicable to the former class."An inevitable accident is an event which happens not only without the concurrence of the will of the man, but in spite of all efforts on his part to prevent it. It means, an accident physically unavoidable is something which cannot be prevented by human skill or foresight.An act of God is an inevitable or unavoidable accident without the intervention of the man, some casualty which the human foresight could not discern and from the consequence of which no human protection could be provided. This is not a case where the incident was due to unexpected operation of natural forces free from human intervention which no reasonable human foresight could be presumed to anticipate its occurrence or to prevent it.As a reference was made to the case of Rylands Vs. Fletcher, in which the defendants had constructed a reservoir upon their land, in order to supply water to their mill. On the site that was chosen for the reservoir, there existed some shafts of a coal mine, which was not in use. However, the passages also led to the adjoining mine which was owned by the plaintiff. This, however, was not discovered at the time of construction with the result that when the reservoir was filled, the water went down to the shaft and flooded the plaintiffs mine. Under these facts, the plaintiff instituted a suit for damages and succeeded. Dismissing the defendants appeal, following was held by the House of Lords."We think that the true rule of law is that the person who for his own purposes brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep in at his peril and if he does not do so is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. He can excuse himself by showing that the escape was owing to the plaintiffs default or perhaps, that the escape was the consequence of vis major or the act of God, but as nothing of this sort exists here, it is unnecessary to enquire what excuse would be sufficient."Q.From the reference given above in the accompanying passage, choose the statement which best defines the concept of inevitable accident and act of God.a)An inevitable accident, without any human intervention is called an act of God.b)An inevitable accident, to the consequences of which some human protection could be provided is called an act of God.c)An inevitable accident, which has been caused due to elementary forces of nature without any human involvement is called an act of God.d)An inevitable accident is also called an act of God.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: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 following is an extract from the judgement of the Honble Orissa High Court in A. Krishna Patra Vs. Orissa State Electricity Board [AIR 1997 Ori 109].While considering the question of inevitable accident or an act of God, it will be useful to reproduce a passage from the Law of Torts, by Justice G. P. Singh."All causes of inevitable accidents may be divided into two classes.(1) Those which are occasioned by the elementary forces of nature unconnected with the agency of man or other cause and(2) Those which have their origin either in the whole or in part in the agency of man, whether in acts of commission or omission, non-feasance or mis-feasance or in any other causes independent of the agency of natural forces. The term act of God is applicable to the former class."An inevitable accident is an event which happens not only without the concurrence of the will of the man, but in spite of all efforts on his part to prevent it. It means, an accident physically unavoidable is something which cannot be prevented by human skill or foresight.An act of God is an inevitable or unavoidable accident without the intervention of the man, some casualty which the human foresight could not discern and from the consequence of which no human protection could be provided. This is not a case where the incident was due to unexpected operation of natural forces free from human intervention which no reasonable human foresight could be presumed to anticipate its occurrence or to prevent it.As a reference was made to the case of Rylands Vs. Fletcher, in which the defendants had constructed a reservoir upon their land, in order to supply water to their mill. On the site that was chosen for the reservoir, there existed some shafts of a coal mine, which was not in use. However, the passages also led to the adjoining mine which was owned by the plaintiff. This, however, was not discovered at the time of construction with the result that when the reservoir was filled, the water went down to the shaft and flooded the plaintiffs mine. Under these facts, the plaintiff instituted a suit for damages and succeeded. Dismissing the defendants appeal, following was held by the House of Lords."We think that the true rule of law is that the person who for his own purposes brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep in at his peril and if he does not do so is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. He can excuse himself by showing that the escape was owing to the plaintiffs default or perhaps, that the escape was the consequence of vis major or the act of God, but as nothing of this sort exists here, it is unnecessary to enquire what excuse would be sufficient."Q.From the reference given above in the accompanying passage, choose the statement which best defines the concept of inevitable accident and act of God.a)An inevitable accident, without any human intervention is called an act of God.b)An inevitable accident, to the consequences of which some human protection could be provided is called an act of God.c)An inevitable accident, which has been caused due to elementary forces of nature without any human involvement is called an act of God.d)An inevitable accident is also called an act of God.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 Directions: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 following is an extract from the judgement of the Honble Orissa High Court in A. Krishna Patra Vs. Orissa State Electricity Board [AIR 1997 Ori 109].While considering the question of inevitable accident or an act of God, it will be useful to reproduce a passage from the Law of Torts, by Justice G. P. Singh."All causes of inevitable accidents may be divided into two classes.(1) Those which are occasioned by the elementary forces of nature unconnected with the agency of man or other cause and(2) Those which have their origin either in the whole or in part in the agency of man, whether in acts of commission or omission, non-feasance or mis-feasance or in any other causes independent of the agency of natural forces. The term act of God is applicable to the former class."An inevitable accident is an event which happens not only without the concurrence of the will of the man, but in spite of all efforts on his part to prevent it. It means, an accident physically unavoidable is something which cannot be prevented by human skill or foresight.An act of God is an inevitable or unavoidable accident without the intervention of the man, some casualty which the human foresight could not discern and from the consequence of which no human protection could be provided. This is not a case where the incident was due to unexpected operation of natural forces free from human intervention which no reasonable human foresight could be presumed to anticipate its occurrence or to prevent it.As a reference was made to the case of Rylands Vs. Fletcher, in which the defendants had constructed a reservoir upon their land, in order to supply water to their mill. On the site that was chosen for the reservoir, there existed some shafts of a coal mine, which was not in use. However, the passages also led to the adjoining mine which was owned by the plaintiff. This, however, was not discovered at the time of construction with the result that when the reservoir was filled, the water went down to the shaft and flooded the plaintiffs mine. Under these facts, the plaintiff instituted a suit for damages and succeeded. Dismissing the defendants appeal, following was held by the House of Lords."We think that the true rule of law is that the person who for his own purposes brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep in at his peril and if he does not do so is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. He can excuse himself by showing that the escape was owing to the plaintiffs default or perhaps, that the escape was the consequence of vis major or the act of God, but as nothing of this sort exists here, it is unnecessary to enquire what excuse would be sufficient."Q.From the reference given above in the accompanying passage, choose the statement which best defines the concept of inevitable accident and act of God.a)An inevitable accident, without any human intervention is called an act of God.b)An inevitable accident, to the consequences of which some human protection could be provided is called an act of God.c)An inevitable accident, which has been caused due to elementary forces of nature without any human involvement is called an act of God.d)An inevitable accident is also called an act of God.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: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 following is an extract from the judgement of the Honble Orissa High Court in A. Krishna Patra Vs. Orissa State Electricity Board [AIR 1997 Ori 109].While considering the question of inevitable accident or an act of God, it will be useful to reproduce a passage from the Law of Torts, by Justice G. P. Singh."All causes of inevitable accidents may be divided into two classes.(1) Those which are occasioned by the elementary forces of nature unconnected with the agency of man or other cause and(2) Those which have their origin either in the whole or in part in the agency of man, whether in acts of commission or omission, non-feasance or mis-feasance or in any other causes independent of the agency of natural forces. The term act of God is applicable to the former class."An inevitable accident is an event which happens not only without the concurrence of the will of the man, but in spite of all efforts on his part to prevent it. It means, an accident physically unavoidable is something which cannot be prevented by human skill or foresight.An act of God is an inevitable or unavoidable accident without the intervention of the man, some casualty which the human foresight could not discern and from the consequence of which no human protection could be provided. This is not a case where the incident was due to unexpected operation of natural forces free from human intervention which no reasonable human foresight could be presumed to anticipate its occurrence or to prevent it.As a reference was made to the case of Rylands Vs. Fletcher, in which the defendants had constructed a reservoir upon their land, in order to supply water to their mill. On the site that was chosen for the reservoir, there existed some shafts of a coal mine, which was not in use. However, the passages also led to the adjoining mine which was owned by the plaintiff. This, however, was not discovered at the time of construction with the result that when the reservoir was filled, the water went down to the shaft and flooded the plaintiffs mine. Under these facts, the plaintiff instituted a suit for damages and succeeded. Dismissing the defendants appeal, following was held by the House of Lords."We think that the true rule of law is that the person who for his own purposes brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep in at his peril and if he does not do so is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. He can excuse himself by showing that the escape was owing to the plaintiffs default or perhaps, that the escape was the consequence of vis major or the act of God, but as nothing of this sort exists here, it is unnecessary to enquire what excuse would be sufficient."Q.From the reference given above in the accompanying passage, choose the statement which best defines the concept of inevitable accident and act of God.a)An inevitable accident, without any human intervention is called an act of God.b)An inevitable accident, to the consequences of which some human protection could be provided is called an act of God.c)An inevitable accident, which has been caused due to elementary forces of nature without any human involvement is called an act of God.d)An inevitable accident is also called an act of God.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: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 following is an extract from the judgement of the Honble Orissa High Court in A. Krishna Patra Vs. Orissa State Electricity Board [AIR 1997 Ori 109].While considering the question of inevitable accident or an act of God, it will be useful to reproduce a passage from the Law of Torts, by Justice G. P. Singh."All causes of inevitable accidents may be divided into two classes.(1) Those which are occasioned by the elementary forces of nature unconnected with the agency of man or other cause and(2) Those which have their origin either in the whole or in part in the agency of man, whether in acts of commission or omission, non-feasance or mis-feasance or in any other causes independent of the agency of natural forces. The term act of God is applicable to the former class."An inevitable accident is an event which happens not only without the concurrence of the will of the man, but in spite of all efforts on his part to prevent it. It means, an accident physically unavoidable is something which cannot be prevented by human skill or foresight.An act of God is an inevitable or unavoidable accident without the intervention of the man, some casualty which the human foresight could not discern and from the consequence of which no human protection could be provided. This is not a case where the incident was due to unexpected operation of natural forces free from human intervention which no reasonable human foresight could be presumed to anticipate its occurrence or to prevent it.As a reference was made to the case of Rylands Vs. Fletcher, in which the defendants had constructed a reservoir upon their land, in order to supply water to their mill. On the site that was chosen for the reservoir, there existed some shafts of a coal mine, which was not in use. However, the passages also led to the adjoining mine which was owned by the plaintiff. This, however, was not discovered at the time of construction with the result that when the reservoir was filled, the water went down to the shaft and flooded the plaintiffs mine. Under these facts, the plaintiff instituted a suit for damages and succeeded. Dismissing the defendants appeal, following was held by the House of Lords."We think that the true rule of law is that the person who for his own purposes brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep in at his peril and if he does not do so is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. He can excuse himself by showing that the escape was owing to the plaintiffs default or perhaps, that the escape was the consequence of vis major or the act of God, but as nothing of this sort exists here, it is unnecessary to enquire what excuse would be sufficient."Q.From the reference given above in the accompanying passage, choose the statement which best defines the concept of inevitable accident and act of God.a)An inevitable accident, without any human intervention is called an act of God.b)An inevitable accident, to the consequences of which some human protection could be provided is called an act of God.c)An inevitable accident, which has been caused due to elementary forces of nature without any human involvement is called an act of God.d)An inevitable accident is also called an act of God.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: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 following is an extract from the judgement of the Honble Orissa High Court in A. Krishna Patra Vs. Orissa State Electricity Board [AIR 1997 Ori 109].While considering the question of inevitable accident or an act of God, it will be useful to reproduce a passage from the Law of Torts, by Justice G. P. Singh."All causes of inevitable accidents may be divided into two classes.(1) Those which are occasioned by the elementary forces of nature unconnected with the agency of man or other cause and(2) Those which have their origin either in the whole or in part in the agency of man, whether in acts of commission or omission, non-feasance or mis-feasance or in any other causes independent of the agency of natural forces. The term act of God is applicable to the former class."An inevitable accident is an event which happens not only without the concurrence of the will of the man, but in spite of all efforts on his part to prevent it. It means, an accident physically unavoidable is something which cannot be prevented by human skill or foresight.An act of God is an inevitable or unavoidable accident without the intervention of the man, some casualty which the human foresight could not discern and from the consequence of which no human protection could be provided. This is not a case where the incident was due to unexpected operation of natural forces free from human intervention which no reasonable human foresight could be presumed to anticipate its occurrence or to prevent it.As a reference was made to the case of Rylands Vs. Fletcher, in which the defendants had constructed a reservoir upon their land, in order to supply water to their mill. On the site that was chosen for the reservoir, there existed some shafts of a coal mine, which was not in use. However, the passages also led to the adjoining mine which was owned by the plaintiff. This, however, was not discovered at the time of construction with the result that when the reservoir was filled, the water went down to the shaft and flooded the plaintiffs mine. Under these facts, the plaintiff instituted a suit for damages and succeeded. Dismissing the defendants appeal, following was held by the House of Lords."We think that the true rule of law is that the person who for his own purposes brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep in at his peril and if he does not do so is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. He can excuse himself by showing that the escape was owing to the plaintiffs default or perhaps, that the escape was the consequence of vis major or the act of God, but as nothing of this sort exists here, it is unnecessary to enquire what excuse would be sufficient."Q.From the reference given above in the accompanying passage, choose the statement which best defines the concept of inevitable accident and act of God.a)An inevitable accident, without any human intervention is called an act of God.b)An inevitable accident, to the consequences of which some human protection could be provided is called an act of God.c)An inevitable accident, which has been caused due to elementary forces of nature without any human involvement is called an act of God.d)An inevitable accident is also called an act of God.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: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 following is an extract from the judgement of the Honble Orissa High Court in A. Krishna Patra Vs. Orissa State Electricity Board [AIR 1997 Ori 109].While considering the question of inevitable accident or an act of God, it will be useful to reproduce a passage from the Law of Torts, by Justice G. P. Singh."All causes of inevitable accidents may be divided into two classes.(1) Those which are occasioned by the elementary forces of nature unconnected with the agency of man or other cause and(2) Those which have their origin either in the whole or in part in the agency of man, whether in acts of commission or omission, non-feasance or mis-feasance or in any other causes independent of the agency of natural forces. The term act of God is applicable to the former class."An inevitable accident is an event which happens not only without the concurrence of the will of the man, but in spite of all efforts on his part to prevent it. It means, an accident physically unavoidable is something which cannot be prevented by human skill or foresight.An act of God is an inevitable or unavoidable accident without the intervention of the man, some casualty which the human foresight could not discern and from the consequence of which no human protection could be provided. This is not a case where the incident was due to unexpected operation of natural forces free from human intervention which no reasonable human foresight could be presumed to anticipate its occurrence or to prevent it.As a reference was made to the case of Rylands Vs. Fletcher, in which the defendants had constructed a reservoir upon their land, in order to supply water to their mill. On the site that was chosen for the reservoir, there existed some shafts of a coal mine, which was not in use. However, the passages also led to the adjoining mine which was owned by the plaintiff. This, however, was not discovered at the time of construction with the result that when the reservoir was filled, the water went down to the shaft and flooded the plaintiffs mine. Under these facts, the plaintiff instituted a suit for damages and succeeded. Dismissing the defendants appeal, following was held by the House of Lords."We think that the true rule of law is that the person who for his own purposes brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep in at his peril and if he does not do so is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape. He can excuse himself by showing that the escape was owing to the plaintiffs default or perhaps, that the escape was the consequence of vis major or the act of God, but as nothing of this sort exists here, it is unnecessary to enquire what excuse would be sufficient."Q.From the reference given above in the accompanying passage, choose the statement which best defines the concept of inevitable accident and act of God.a)An inevitable accident, without any human intervention is called an act of God.b)An inevitable accident, to the consequences of which some human protection could be provided is called an act of God.c)An inevitable accident, which has been caused due to elementary forces of nature without any human involvement is called an act of God.d)An inevitable accident is also called an act of God.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.