Question Description
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 18thcentury. 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. Its 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 defendants 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 defendants 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.Richard carried out a new project in Sunville apartment which was built in 1980s. Sunville apartment being an old building was prone to water leakages and needed cautious repairs. Richard while installing the new fire system used non-insulated wires. Sunville apartment met with a short circuit and the building caught fire. Richard was held liable for the fire. Is Richard liable for the same?a)Richard cannot be held liable for the same as he only installed the new security system and the leakages were not to be taken care by him.b)Richard will be held liable for the same as it was Richards duty to take reasonable care of the installations done by him keeping in mind the present building situationc)Richard will be held liable as he is the one who took the responsibility for the repairs and it was Richards duty to fix the leakages and other flaws in the buildingd)Either 1 or 2Correct answer is option 'B'. 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 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 18thcentury. 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. Its 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 defendants 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 defendants 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.Richard carried out a new project in Sunville apartment which was built in 1980s. Sunville apartment being an old building was prone to water leakages and needed cautious repairs. Richard while installing the new fire system used non-insulated wires. Sunville apartment met with a short circuit and the building caught fire. Richard was held liable for the fire. Is Richard liable for the same?a)Richard cannot be held liable for the same as he only installed the new security system and the leakages were not to be taken care by him.b)Richard will be held liable for the same as it was Richards duty to take reasonable care of the installations done by him keeping in mind the present building situationc)Richard will be held liable as he is the one who took the responsibility for the repairs and it was Richards duty to fix the leakages and other flaws in the buildingd)Either 1 or 2Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for 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 18thcentury. 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. Its 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 defendants 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 defendants 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.Richard carried out a new project in Sunville apartment which was built in 1980s. Sunville apartment being an old building was prone to water leakages and needed cautious repairs. Richard while installing the new fire system used non-insulated wires. Sunville apartment met with a short circuit and the building caught fire. Richard was held liable for the fire. Is Richard liable for the same?a)Richard cannot be held liable for the same as he only installed the new security system and the leakages were not to be taken care by him.b)Richard will be held liable for the same as it was Richards duty to take reasonable care of the installations done by him keeping in mind the present building situationc)Richard will be held liable as he is the one who took the responsibility for the repairs and it was Richards duty to fix the leakages and other flaws in the buildingd)Either 1 or 2Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for 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 18thcentury. 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. Its 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 defendants 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 defendants 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.Richard carried out a new project in Sunville apartment which was built in 1980s. Sunville apartment being an old building was prone to water leakages and needed cautious repairs. Richard while installing the new fire system used non-insulated wires. Sunville apartment met with a short circuit and the building caught fire. Richard was held liable for the fire. Is Richard liable for the same?a)Richard cannot be held liable for the same as he only installed the new security system and the leakages were not to be taken care by him.b)Richard will be held liable for the same as it was Richards duty to take reasonable care of the installations done by him keeping in mind the present building situationc)Richard will be held liable as he is the one who took the responsibility for the repairs and it was Richards duty to fix the leakages and other flaws in the buildingd)Either 1 or 2Correct answer is option 'B'. 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 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 18thcentury. 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. Its 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 defendants 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 defendants 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.Richard carried out a new project in Sunville apartment which was built in 1980s. Sunville apartment being an old building was prone to water leakages and needed cautious repairs. Richard while installing the new fire system used non-insulated wires. Sunville apartment met with a short circuit and the building caught fire. Richard was held liable for the fire. Is Richard liable for the same?a)Richard cannot be held liable for the same as he only installed the new security system and the leakages were not to be taken care by him.b)Richard will be held liable for the same as it was Richards duty to take reasonable care of the installations done by him keeping in mind the present building situationc)Richard will be held liable as he is the one who took the responsibility for the repairs and it was Richards duty to fix the leakages and other flaws in the buildingd)Either 1 or 2Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of 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 18thcentury. 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. Its 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 defendants 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 defendants 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.Richard carried out a new project in Sunville apartment which was built in 1980s. Sunville apartment being an old building was prone to water leakages and needed cautious repairs. Richard while installing the new fire system used non-insulated wires. Sunville apartment met with a short circuit and the building caught fire. Richard was held liable for the fire. Is Richard liable for the same?a)Richard cannot be held liable for the same as he only installed the new security system and the leakages were not to be taken care by him.b)Richard will be held liable for the same as it was Richards duty to take reasonable care of the installations done by him keeping in mind the present building situationc)Richard will be held liable as he is the one who took the responsibility for the repairs and it was Richards duty to fix the leakages and other flaws in the buildingd)Either 1 or 2Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for 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 18thcentury. 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. Its 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 defendants 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 defendants 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.Richard carried out a new project in Sunville apartment which was built in 1980s. Sunville apartment being an old building was prone to water leakages and needed cautious repairs. Richard while installing the new fire system used non-insulated wires. Sunville apartment met with a short circuit and the building caught fire. Richard was held liable for the fire. Is Richard liable for the same?a)Richard cannot be held liable for the same as he only installed the new security system and the leakages were not to be taken care by him.b)Richard will be held liable for the same as it was Richards duty to take reasonable care of the installations done by him keeping in mind the present building situationc)Richard will be held liable as he is the one who took the responsibility for the repairs and it was Richards duty to fix the leakages and other flaws in the buildingd)Either 1 or 2Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of 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 18thcentury. 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. Its 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 defendants 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 defendants 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.Richard carried out a new project in Sunville apartment which was built in 1980s. Sunville apartment being an old building was prone to water leakages and needed cautious repairs. Richard while installing the new fire system used non-insulated wires. Sunville apartment met with a short circuit and the building caught fire. Richard was held liable for the fire. Is Richard liable for the same?a)Richard cannot be held liable for the same as he only installed the new security system and the leakages were not to be taken care by him.b)Richard will be held liable for the same as it was Richards duty to take reasonable care of the installations done by him keeping in mind the present building situationc)Richard will be held liable as he is the one who took the responsibility for the repairs and it was Richards duty to fix the leakages and other flaws in the buildingd)Either 1 or 2Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice 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 18thcentury. 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. Its 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 defendants 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 defendants 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.Richard carried out a new project in Sunville apartment which was built in 1980s. Sunville apartment being an old building was prone to water leakages and needed cautious repairs. Richard while installing the new fire system used non-insulated wires. Sunville apartment met with a short circuit and the building caught fire. Richard was held liable for the fire. Is Richard liable for the same?a)Richard cannot be held liable for the same as he only installed the new security system and the leakages were not to be taken care by him.b)Richard will be held liable for the same as it was Richards duty to take reasonable care of the installations done by him keeping in mind the present building situationc)Richard will be held liable as he is the one who took the responsibility for the repairs and it was Richards duty to fix the leakages and other flaws in the buildingd)Either 1 or 2Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.