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:a)Principle Ib)Principle IIc)Both (a) and (b)d)None of the aboveCorrect 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 ultrahazardous activity under...

Join the Discussion on the App

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:

a)
Principle I
b)
Principle II
c)
Both (a) and (b)
d)
None of the above

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

FREE This question is part of

Test: Passage Based Legal Reasoning (Easy)

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Verified Answer

Principle:I. An ultrahazardous activity under the law of torts is one ...

A perusal of principles (i) and (ii) clearly shows that Toshi could be held strictly liable on both accounts since he worked and carelessly disposed of radioactive substances and kept a domesticated animal known to have a propensity for dangerous behaviour.

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 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?

View answer

Remoteness of damage is an interesting principle. Once the damage is caused by a wrong, there have to be liabilities. The question is how much liability can be fixed, and what factor determines it. The principle of Remoteness of Damages is relevant to such cases. An event constituting a wrong can constitute a single consequence or may constitute a set of consequences i.e. series of acts/wrongs. The damage may be proximate or might be remote, or too remote. A few elaborations of cases would perhaps make it more clear.In Haynes v. Harwood - the defendant’s servants negligently left a horse van unattended in a crowded street. The throwing of stones at the horses by a child, made them bolt and a policeman was injured in an attempt to stop them with a view to rescuing the woman and children on the road. One of the defences pleaded by the defendant was remoteness of consequences i.e. the mischief of the child was the proximate cause and the negligence of the servants was a remote cause. The rules on the remoteness of damage in the contract are found in the Court of Exchequer’s judgment in Hadley v Baxendale, as interpreted in later cases. In Hadley v Baxendale, the plaintiff’s mill had come to a standstill due to their crankshaft breakage. The defendant carrier failed to deliver the broken crankshaft to the manufacturer within the specified time. There had been a delay in restarting the mill. The plaintiff sued to recover the profits they would have made if the mill had been started without delay. The court rejected the claim on the ground that the mill’s profits must be stopped by an unreasonable delay in the carrier’s delivery of the broken shaft to the third person.Certainly, the question of where to draw the line on recoverability of consequential losses cannot be answered by a mathematically precise formula. Judges have used their discretion from time to time, and in that process, two formulas have been highlighted:1. The test of reasonable foresight2. The test of directnessThe Test of Reasonable Foresight - If the consequences of a wrongful act could be foreseen by a reasonable man, then they are not too remote. If on the other hand, a reasonable man could not have foreseen the consequences, then they are too remote. And, an individual shall be liable only for the consequences which are not too remote i.e. which could be foreseen.The Test of Directness- according to the test of directness, a person is liable for all the direct consequences of his wrongful act, whether he could foresee them or not; because consequences which directly follow a wrongful act are not too remote.Q. Suri was 6 feet 4 inches tall, working in the factory of Mandeep. The factory had a very low ceiling. Suri was aware of this problem and took as much precaution as possible, however, one fateful day, he banged his head on the fan and got severely hurt. Due to getting hurt on the head, he started suffering from depression and anxiety. One day while his treatment was still going on, in a fit of anxiety and depression, Suri hung himself and committed suicide. Suri 's kin holds Mandeep liable. Can Mandeep be held responsible for Suri getting hurt on the head?

View answer

Principle – Whoever stores a substance which would cause damage on escape shall be strictly liable (i.e., liable even when he has exercised necessary car e) for any damage caused by the escape of that substance.Facts – Cobalamine Co. is a manufacturer of hydrogen peroxide which has several industrial uses, but is also dangerous. The Company has one of its factories set up in Dimapur, a small district. While transporting the hydrogen peroxide from that factory to another place in huge containers, the engine of the truck carrying the chemical got overheated, and this triggered an explosion of the concentrated hydrogen peroxide. The truck driver, and several other people on the road were grievously injured. The reaction was shortly contained by an expert team, and investigations revealed that reasonable precautions had been taken to prevent such a mishap.Q. Will Cobalamine be liable to pay damages to those injured?

View answer

The fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1) are not absolute. They are subject to restrictions placed in the subsequent clauses of Article19 according to the procedure established by law. No restrictions can be placed by mere executive or departmental instructions. However, these restrictions must be reasonable and not arbitrary. Each of these rights is liable to be controlled, curtailed and regulated to some extent by laws made by Parliament.Restrictions may be enacted “in the interests of” public order of the general public. A restriction can be said to be in the interest of public order only if the connection between the restriction and the public order is direct and proximate. Hence a restriction to be constitutionally valid must satisfy the following two tests:A legislation arbitrarily invading the right of a person cannot be regarded as reasonable. A restriction to be valid must have a direct and proximate nexus with the object which the legislation seeks to achieve and the restriction must not be in excess of that object i.e., a balance between the freedoms guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(

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 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:a)Principle Ib)Principle IIc)Both (a) and (b)d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
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:a)Principle Ib)Principle IIc)Both (a) and (b)d)None of the aboveCorrect 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 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:a)Principle Ib)Principle IIc)Both (a) and (b)d)None of the aboveCorrect 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 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:a)Principle Ib)Principle IIc)Both (a) and (b)d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for 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:a)Principle Ib)Principle IIc)Both (a) and (b)d)None of the aboveCorrect 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 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:a)Principle Ib)Principle IIc)Both (a) and (b)d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of 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:a)Principle Ib)Principle IIc)Both (a) and (b)d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for 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:a)Principle Ib)Principle IIc)Both (a) and (b)d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of 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:a)Principle Ib)Principle IIc)Both (a) and (b)d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice 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:a)Principle Ib)Principle IIc)Both (a) and (b)d)None of the aboveCorrect answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam