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 andldquo;TRESPASSERS BEWAREandrdquo;. 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?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Principle:I. An ultra-hazardous activity unde...

Join the Discussion on the App

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)
Yes
b)
No
c)
No, Tiku will have to prove that Ian was negligent
d)
It cannot be determined

Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

FREE This question is part of

Test: Passage Based Legal Reasoning (Medium)

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Verified Answer

Principle:I. An ultra-hazardous activity under tort law is one that is...

Principle (iii) clearly states that 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. This will follow in the instant case as well.

View all questions of this test

View all answers Start learning for free

< Previous Question Next Question >

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Principle:I. An ultrahazardous activity under the law of torts is one that is so inherently dangerous that a person engaged in such an activity can be held strictly liable for injuries caused to another person, even if the person engaged in the activity took every reasonable precaution to prevent others from being injured.II. Keeping of domesticated animals that have a known propensity for dangerous behaviour comes under an ultrahazardous activity.III. A person who is injured by one of these ultrahazardous activities while trespassing on the property of the person engaged in the activity is barred from suing under a strict liability theory.Facts:Toshi was an agricultural scientist. He was experimenting with some radioactive substances to detect their effect on crop growth etc. He disposed of the plants he used for the tests in the dumpster in the park in the neighbourhood. Toshi was very particular about the security of his house. He had kept a dog. The dog had a tendency to attack and bite people and had bitten a couple of the neighbours’ children before. One day, some of the children from the neighbourhood were playing in the park and one of them accidentally knocked off the dumpster. The children began to cough as fumes from the plants Toshi had discarded, were inhaled by them. The neighbours were furious at this. The society welfare officer, Ramakant, went to speak with Toshi immediately. But, as he entered the house, Toshi’s pet dog bit him.Choose the correct statement from the following

View answer

Principle:I. An ultrahazardous activity under the law of torts is one that is so inherently dangerous that a person engaged in such an activity can be held strictly liable for injuries caused to another person, even if the person engaged in the activity took every reasonable precaution to prevent others from being injured.II. Keeping of domesticated animals that have a known propensity for dangerous behaviour comes under an ultrahazardous activity.III. A person who is injured by one of these ultrahazardous activities while trespassing on the property of the person engaged in the activity is barred from suing under a strict liability theory. Strict liability would be imposed on Toshi under

View answer

A large number of the branches of banks have been set up in the villages. The main purpose of setting up these banks is to develop the habit of saving among the villagers and also gives loans to the farmers for boosting the production in one or the other way. So far the banks had been concentrated in the big cities and Indian villagers had no faith in them. The new banks also intend re-channelling bank credit from the big industries to small sectors. With the intention to promote rural banking, Regional Rural Banks were established. These combined the local field with the rural problems. These banks are not to replace the other credit giving bodies but to supplement them.The Steering Committee of the Regional Rural Banks considered some structural changes. First of all they gave thought to the staffing spectrum then to effective coordination among banks- rural cooperatives and commercial-and the possibility of bringing credit within the access of weaker sections. They wanted to recruit the staff for the rural banks at lower salaries. But this type of discrimination would have been dangerous. So it was given up.Another problem with regard to the rural banks is the creditworthiness of the poor. Indian farmers are so poor that they cannot pay back their loans. The rural Indian surveys it quite clear that practically they have no credit worthiness. Their socio-economic mobility is almost zero. Long ago in Ranchi the Government experimented with the idea of advancing loan but the experiment failed, that is why the banks used to fear that their credit would never be paid back.Another difficulty for the rural banks is that loans cannot be so easily processed. Processing loans will also entail heavy expenditure. This is also going to affect their financial position. Still the establishment of the rural banks has been decided because the social advantages are more important than the commercial considerations.Rural banks will definitely encourage savings. It is not the proper time to mop up the rural surplus. No doubt villages do not have to pay income tax and they get many other concessions, yet their saving is not significant. Beside all these hurdles, the rural banking system will boost up the economy of villages, and so the economy of the country.Q. "This type of discrim i nation would have been dangerous". What is referred to as being dangerous?

View answer

A large number of the branches of banks have been set up in the villages. The main purpose of setting up these banks is to develop the habit of saving among the villagers and also gives loans to the farmers for boosting the production in one or the other way. So far the banks had been concentrated in the big cities and Indian villagers had no faith in them. The new banks also intend re-channelling bank credit from the big industries to small sectors. With the intention to promote rural banking, Regional Rural Banks were established. These combined the local field with the rural problems. These banks are not to replace the other credit giving bodies but to supplement them.The Steering Committee of the Regional Rural Banks considered some structural changes. First of all they gave thought to the staffing spectrum then to effective coordination among banks- rural cooperatives and commercial-and the possibility of bringing credit within the access of weaker sections. They wanted to recruit the staff for the rural banks at lower salaries. But this type of discrimination would have been dangerous. So it was given up.Another problem with regard to the rural banks is the creditworthiness of the poor. Indian farmers are so poor that they cannot pay back their loans. The rural Indian surveys it quite clear that practically they have no credit worthiness. Their socio-economic mobility is almost zero. Long ago in Ranchi the Government experimented with the idea of advancing loan but the experiment failed, that is why the banks used to fear that their credit would never be paid back.Another difficulty for the rural banks is that loans cannot be so easily processed. Processing loans will also entail heavy expenditure. This is also going to affect their financial position. Still the establishment of the rural banks has been decided because the social advantages are more important than the commercial considerations.Rural banks will definitely encourage savings. It is not the proper time to mop up the rural surplus. No doubt villages do not have to pay income tax and they get many other concessions, yet their saving is not significant. Beside all these hurdles rural banking system will boost up the economy of villages, and so the economy of the country.Q. Why has the establishment of rural banks been decided despite the challenges involved in the process?

View answer

Passage - 5The recent judgment of the Bombay High Court in Nishanth Harishchandra Salvi v. State Of Maharashtra noted several instances where the Act has been interpreted. In Para 9, it has observed,"The Probation of Offenders(P.O. Act) Act is still in force, but 50 years down the line with ever increasing crime rate, the benefits of the P.O. Act, by judicial trend are not being extended to large number of cases. This is not to say that it ought not to be extended in appropriate cases. The benefits have not been encouraged in cases involving socio-economic offences, offences involving sex perversity cases involving moral turpitude or moral delinquency, cases involving misappropriation of property, gold smuggling, food adulteration offences, offences under Prevention of Corruption Act, and even in cases under Section 304A of IPC. Judicial trend has been cautious in not extending probation to persons who are educated and experienced in life and deliberately flout the law with impunity and to those who are potential dangers to the society."The 41st report of the Law Commission, in 1969, introduced the concept of "suspension of sentence", which later on came to be embodied in section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. It was to be imposed in a very limited area of operation, where convicts seeking appeal, in certain cases, could have their sentences suspended and consequently let off on bail, pending the appeal.For many years, several countries have had a well- grounded system ingrained in their administration of criminal justice where in several cases, (where the offences are mostly petty/common and the maximum sentence is less than two or three years as the case may b e) a suspended sentence is awarded.When a Court imposes a suspended sentence, it is not that the seriousness of the crime is not recognized. Apart from plainly being merciful and allowing the convict to remain in circulation in society - with the Damocles Sword of being sent to prison hanging over his head as a deterrent - there is probably less chance of the offender, reoffending.The biggest benefit is mutual - to the offender thus let off, as well as to those who are already in prison. The prison population is minimized, thereby maximizing the sparse facilities for the existing prison population. The other by-product of such a situation is preventing a "soft criminal" from having to spend quality time with the hardened ones.Q.Based on the authors arguments in the passage above, which of the following statements is most inferential?

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

CLAT Mock Test Series 2025

Crash Course for CLAT

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

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?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

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 2024 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 2024 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.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam