Question Description
Principle:I. An ultra-hazardous activity under tort law is one that is so inherently dangerous that a person engaged in such an activity can be held strictly liable for injuries to another person, even if the person engaged in the activity took every reasonable precaution to prevent others from being injured.II. The following factors help determine whether it is an ultrahazardous activity: the relative possibility of harm; the level of seriousness of potential harm; the level of activity; if the possibility of harm is decreased with the utmost care; whether the risk of the activity outweighs its social value; inappropriateness of the activity in the area it is commenced.III. A person who is injured by one of these ultra-hazardous activities while trespassing on the property of the person engaged in the activity is barred from suing under the strict liability theory. Instead, they must prove that the property owner was negligent.Facts: Ian was a renowned scientist. He used to conduct experiments using radioactive substances. While he used to use adequate precautions and wore a protective suit and mask at all times, he had also cordoned off the area to others, and there were signs everywhere saying “TRESPASSERS BEWARE”. One evening, Tiku, a thief, ran inside to hide, ignoring all the safety warnings.Will Ian be strictly liable in this case?a)Yesb)Noc)No, Tiku will have to prove that Ian was negligentd)It cannot be determinedCorrect 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 Principle:I. An ultra-hazardous activity under tort law is one that is so inherently dangerous that a person engaged in such an activity can be held strictly liable for injuries to another person, even if the person engaged in the activity took every reasonable precaution to prevent others from being injured.II. The following factors help determine whether it is an ultrahazardous activity: the relative possibility of harm; the level of seriousness of potential harm; the level of activity; if the possibility of harm is decreased with the utmost care; whether the risk of the activity outweighs its social value; inappropriateness of the activity in the area it is commenced.III. A person who is injured by one of these ultra-hazardous activities while trespassing on the property of the person engaged in the activity is barred from suing under the strict liability theory. Instead, they must prove that the property owner was negligent.Facts: Ian was a renowned scientist. He used to conduct experiments using radioactive substances. While he used to use adequate precautions and wore a protective suit and mask at all times, he had also cordoned off the area to others, and there were signs everywhere saying “TRESPASSERS BEWARE”. One evening, Tiku, a thief, ran inside to hide, ignoring all the safety warnings.Will Ian be strictly liable in this case?a)Yesb)Noc)No, Tiku will have to prove that Ian was negligentd)It cannot be determinedCorrect 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 Principle:I. An ultra-hazardous activity under tort law is one that is so inherently dangerous that a person engaged in such an activity can be held strictly liable for injuries to another person, even if the person engaged in the activity took every reasonable precaution to prevent others from being injured.II. The following factors help determine whether it is an ultrahazardous activity: the relative possibility of harm; the level of seriousness of potential harm; the level of activity; if the possibility of harm is decreased with the utmost care; whether the risk of the activity outweighs its social value; inappropriateness of the activity in the area it is commenced.III. A person who is injured by one of these ultra-hazardous activities while trespassing on the property of the person engaged in the activity is barred from suing under the strict liability theory. Instead, they must prove that the property owner was negligent.Facts: Ian was a renowned scientist. He used to conduct experiments using radioactive substances. While he used to use adequate precautions and wore a protective suit and mask at all times, he had also cordoned off the area to others, and there were signs everywhere saying “TRESPASSERS BEWARE”. One evening, Tiku, a thief, ran inside to hide, ignoring all the safety warnings.Will Ian be strictly liable in this case?a)Yesb)Noc)No, Tiku will have to prove that Ian was negligentd)It cannot be determinedCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Principle:I. An ultra-hazardous activity under tort law is one that is so inherently dangerous that a person engaged in such an activity can be held strictly liable for injuries to another person, even if the person engaged in the activity took every reasonable precaution to prevent others from being injured.II. The following factors help determine whether it is an ultrahazardous activity: the relative possibility of harm; the level of seriousness of potential harm; the level of activity; if the possibility of harm is decreased with the utmost care; whether the risk of the activity outweighs its social value; inappropriateness of the activity in the area it is commenced.III. A person who is injured by one of these ultra-hazardous activities while trespassing on the property of the person engaged in the activity is barred from suing under the strict liability theory. Instead, they must prove that the property owner was negligent.Facts: Ian was a renowned scientist. He used to conduct experiments using radioactive substances. While he used to use adequate precautions and wore a protective suit and mask at all times, he had also cordoned off the area to others, and there were signs everywhere saying “TRESPASSERS BEWARE”. One evening, Tiku, a thief, ran inside to hide, ignoring all the safety warnings.Will Ian be strictly liable in this case?a)Yesb)Noc)No, Tiku will have to prove that Ian was negligentd)It cannot be determinedCorrect 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:I. An ultra-hazardous activity under tort law is one that is so inherently dangerous that a person engaged in such an activity can be held strictly liable for injuries to another person, even if the person engaged in the activity took every reasonable precaution to prevent others from being injured.II. The following factors help determine whether it is an ultrahazardous activity: the relative possibility of harm; the level of seriousness of potential harm; the level of activity; if the possibility of harm is decreased with the utmost care; whether the risk of the activity outweighs its social value; inappropriateness of the activity in the area it is commenced.III. A person who is injured by one of these ultra-hazardous activities while trespassing on the property of the person engaged in the activity is barred from suing under the strict liability theory. Instead, they must prove that the property owner was negligent.Facts: Ian was a renowned scientist. He used to conduct experiments using radioactive substances. While he used to use adequate precautions and wore a protective suit and mask at all times, he had also cordoned off the area to others, and there were signs everywhere saying “TRESPASSERS BEWARE”. One evening, Tiku, a thief, ran inside to hide, ignoring all the safety warnings.Will Ian be strictly liable in this case?a)Yesb)Noc)No, Tiku will have to prove that Ian was negligentd)It cannot be determinedCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Principle:I. An ultra-hazardous activity under tort law is one that is so inherently dangerous that a person engaged in such an activity can be held strictly liable for injuries to another person, even if the person engaged in the activity took every reasonable precaution to prevent others from being injured.II. The following factors help determine whether it is an ultrahazardous activity: the relative possibility of harm; the level of seriousness of potential harm; the level of activity; if the possibility of harm is decreased with the utmost care; whether the risk of the activity outweighs its social value; inappropriateness of the activity in the area it is commenced.III. A person who is injured by one of these ultra-hazardous activities while trespassing on the property of the person engaged in the activity is barred from suing under the strict liability theory. Instead, they must prove that the property owner was negligent.Facts: Ian was a renowned scientist. He used to conduct experiments using radioactive substances. While he used to use adequate precautions and wore a protective suit and mask at all times, he had also cordoned off the area to others, and there were signs everywhere saying “TRESPASSERS BEWARE”. One evening, Tiku, a thief, ran inside to hide, ignoring all the safety warnings.Will Ian be strictly liable in this case?a)Yesb)Noc)No, Tiku will have to prove that Ian was negligentd)It cannot be determinedCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Principle:I. An ultra-hazardous activity under tort law is one that is so inherently dangerous that a person engaged in such an activity can be held strictly liable for injuries to another person, even if the person engaged in the activity took every reasonable precaution to prevent others from being injured.II. The following factors help determine whether it is an ultrahazardous activity: the relative possibility of harm; the level of seriousness of potential harm; the level of activity; if the possibility of harm is decreased with the utmost care; whether the risk of the activity outweighs its social value; inappropriateness of the activity in the area it is commenced.III. A person who is injured by one of these ultra-hazardous activities while trespassing on the property of the person engaged in the activity is barred from suing under the strict liability theory. Instead, they must prove that the property owner was negligent.Facts: Ian was a renowned scientist. He used to conduct experiments using radioactive substances. While he used to use adequate precautions and wore a protective suit and mask at all times, he had also cordoned off the area to others, and there were signs everywhere saying “TRESPASSERS BEWARE”. One evening, Tiku, a thief, ran inside to hide, ignoring all the safety warnings.Will Ian be strictly liable in this case?a)Yesb)Noc)No, Tiku will have to prove that Ian was negligentd)It cannot be determinedCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Principle:I. An ultra-hazardous activity under tort law is one that is so inherently dangerous that a person engaged in such an activity can be held strictly liable for injuries to another person, even if the person engaged in the activity took every reasonable precaution to prevent others from being injured.II. The following factors help determine whether it is an ultrahazardous activity: the relative possibility of harm; the level of seriousness of potential harm; the level of activity; if the possibility of harm is decreased with the utmost care; whether the risk of the activity outweighs its social value; inappropriateness of the activity in the area it is commenced.III. A person who is injured by one of these ultra-hazardous activities while trespassing on the property of the person engaged in the activity is barred from suing under the strict liability theory. Instead, they must prove that the property owner was negligent.Facts: Ian was a renowned scientist. He used to conduct experiments using radioactive substances. While he used to use adequate precautions and wore a protective suit and mask at all times, he had also cordoned off the area to others, and there were signs everywhere saying “TRESPASSERS BEWARE”. One evening, Tiku, a thief, ran inside to hide, ignoring all the safety warnings.Will Ian be strictly liable in this case?a)Yesb)Noc)No, Tiku will have to prove that Ian was negligentd)It cannot be determinedCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Principle:I. An ultra-hazardous activity under tort law is one that is so inherently dangerous that a person engaged in such an activity can be held strictly liable for injuries to another person, even if the person engaged in the activity took every reasonable precaution to prevent others from being injured.II. The following factors help determine whether it is an ultrahazardous activity: the relative possibility of harm; the level of seriousness of potential harm; the level of activity; if the possibility of harm is decreased with the utmost care; whether the risk of the activity outweighs its social value; inappropriateness of the activity in the area it is commenced.III. A person who is injured by one of these ultra-hazardous activities while trespassing on the property of the person engaged in the activity is barred from suing under the strict liability theory. Instead, they must prove that the property owner was negligent.Facts: Ian was a renowned scientist. He used to conduct experiments using radioactive substances. While he used to use adequate precautions and wore a protective suit and mask at all times, he had also cordoned off the area to others, and there were signs everywhere saying “TRESPASSERS BEWARE”. One evening, Tiku, a thief, ran inside to hide, ignoring all the safety warnings.Will Ian be strictly liable in this case?a)Yesb)Noc)No, Tiku will have to prove that Ian was negligentd)It cannot be determinedCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.