Question Description
Passage - 1The law of torts has been evolving throughout its existence. There are certain principles which are used to counter claims for compensation. These counterclaims or defences are used to evict those citizens from tortious liability who have been unfairly been implicated with wrong claims imposed on them. These defences have been formulated from time to time to keep up with the basis of imposition of tortious liability on a person.INEVITABLE ACCIDENTInevitable Accidents are, as evident from the name, events which could not have been prevented by the parties through the exercise of ordinary care, caution, and skill. An inevitable accident is one which could not be possibly prevented by the exercise of ordinary care, caution and skill and hence it does not apply to anything which either of the parties might have avoided. Sir Frederick Pollock defined an inevitable accident as an accident which is not avoidable by any precautions, a reasonable man could have expected to take.In the past cases, the defence of inevitable accident used to be very relevant in actions for trespass when the older rule was that even an innocent trespass was actionable unless the defendant could prove that the accident was caused due to it being inevitable in nature. The term "inevitable accident" is used in instances where the accidents occur by chance and in the absence of human error. Both of these are similar in terms of negligence, if it is proved by the plaintiff that there was negligence on the part of the defendant then the defendant will not be able to escape liability by using these defenses. The plea of an inevitable accident has lost its practicality in todays day and age, as it has lost its utility since the principle of absolute liability, applies even in the absence of defendants negligence and with the growth in the dimension of science the number of accidents which were considered to be inevitable is fastly diminishing.To sum it all up, an inevitable accident is an event which happens not only without the concurrence of the will of a man but in spite of all the efforts that a man may put on his part to prevent it from happening i.e. an accident which is physically unavoidable and cant be prevented by human skill or foresight.Q.Nothing is said to be done or believed in good faith which is done or believed without proper care and caution. A young boy was hit by a car resulting in injuries and bleeding. X who witnessed the accident, took the boy to a local dispensary. Since there was no one at the dispensary, he decided to give stitches to boy himself. An infection was contracted by the boy as a result of stitches. X was arrested but he pleaded that his actions were carried out in good faith. Decide.a)The actions of X fall under the definition of good faith as his intention was to give medical care to a person, who urgently needed it.b)The actions of X do not fall under good faith as he was uneducated in the matters of medicine and surgery.c)The actions of X fall under good faith as the boy would have lost his life, had X not attended to him.d)The actions of X were not done in good faith as he could have taken him to another hospital.Correct 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 Passage - 1The law of torts has been evolving throughout its existence. There are certain principles which are used to counter claims for compensation. These counterclaims or defences are used to evict those citizens from tortious liability who have been unfairly been implicated with wrong claims imposed on them. These defences have been formulated from time to time to keep up with the basis of imposition of tortious liability on a person.INEVITABLE ACCIDENTInevitable Accidents are, as evident from the name, events which could not have been prevented by the parties through the exercise of ordinary care, caution, and skill. An inevitable accident is one which could not be possibly prevented by the exercise of ordinary care, caution and skill and hence it does not apply to anything which either of the parties might have avoided. Sir Frederick Pollock defined an inevitable accident as an accident which is not avoidable by any precautions, a reasonable man could have expected to take.In the past cases, the defence of inevitable accident used to be very relevant in actions for trespass when the older rule was that even an innocent trespass was actionable unless the defendant could prove that the accident was caused due to it being inevitable in nature. The term "inevitable accident" is used in instances where the accidents occur by chance and in the absence of human error. Both of these are similar in terms of negligence, if it is proved by the plaintiff that there was negligence on the part of the defendant then the defendant will not be able to escape liability by using these defenses. The plea of an inevitable accident has lost its practicality in todays day and age, as it has lost its utility since the principle of absolute liability, applies even in the absence of defendants negligence and with the growth in the dimension of science the number of accidents which were considered to be inevitable is fastly diminishing.To sum it all up, an inevitable accident is an event which happens not only without the concurrence of the will of a man but in spite of all the efforts that a man may put on his part to prevent it from happening i.e. an accident which is physically unavoidable and cant be prevented by human skill or foresight.Q.Nothing is said to be done or believed in good faith which is done or believed without proper care and caution. A young boy was hit by a car resulting in injuries and bleeding. X who witnessed the accident, took the boy to a local dispensary. Since there was no one at the dispensary, he decided to give stitches to boy himself. An infection was contracted by the boy as a result of stitches. X was arrested but he pleaded that his actions were carried out in good faith. Decide.a)The actions of X fall under the definition of good faith as his intention was to give medical care to a person, who urgently needed it.b)The actions of X do not fall under good faith as he was uneducated in the matters of medicine and surgery.c)The actions of X fall under good faith as the boy would have lost his life, had X not attended to him.d)The actions of X were not done in good faith as he could have taken him to another hospital.Correct 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 Passage - 1The law of torts has been evolving throughout its existence. There are certain principles which are used to counter claims for compensation. These counterclaims or defences are used to evict those citizens from tortious liability who have been unfairly been implicated with wrong claims imposed on them. These defences have been formulated from time to time to keep up with the basis of imposition of tortious liability on a person.INEVITABLE ACCIDENTInevitable Accidents are, as evident from the name, events which could not have been prevented by the parties through the exercise of ordinary care, caution, and skill. An inevitable accident is one which could not be possibly prevented by the exercise of ordinary care, caution and skill and hence it does not apply to anything which either of the parties might have avoided. Sir Frederick Pollock defined an inevitable accident as an accident which is not avoidable by any precautions, a reasonable man could have expected to take.In the past cases, the defence of inevitable accident used to be very relevant in actions for trespass when the older rule was that even an innocent trespass was actionable unless the defendant could prove that the accident was caused due to it being inevitable in nature. The term "inevitable accident" is used in instances where the accidents occur by chance and in the absence of human error. Both of these are similar in terms of negligence, if it is proved by the plaintiff that there was negligence on the part of the defendant then the defendant will not be able to escape liability by using these defenses. The plea of an inevitable accident has lost its practicality in todays day and age, as it has lost its utility since the principle of absolute liability, applies even in the absence of defendants negligence and with the growth in the dimension of science the number of accidents which were considered to be inevitable is fastly diminishing.To sum it all up, an inevitable accident is an event which happens not only without the concurrence of the will of a man but in spite of all the efforts that a man may put on his part to prevent it from happening i.e. an accident which is physically unavoidable and cant be prevented by human skill or foresight.Q.Nothing is said to be done or believed in good faith which is done or believed without proper care and caution. A young boy was hit by a car resulting in injuries and bleeding. X who witnessed the accident, took the boy to a local dispensary. Since there was no one at the dispensary, he decided to give stitches to boy himself. An infection was contracted by the boy as a result of stitches. X was arrested but he pleaded that his actions were carried out in good faith. Decide.a)The actions of X fall under the definition of good faith as his intention was to give medical care to a person, who urgently needed it.b)The actions of X do not fall under good faith as he was uneducated in the matters of medicine and surgery.c)The actions of X fall under good faith as the boy would have lost his life, had X not attended to him.d)The actions of X were not done in good faith as he could have taken him to another hospital.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Passage - 1The law of torts has been evolving throughout its existence. There are certain principles which are used to counter claims for compensation. These counterclaims or defences are used to evict those citizens from tortious liability who have been unfairly been implicated with wrong claims imposed on them. These defences have been formulated from time to time to keep up with the basis of imposition of tortious liability on a person.INEVITABLE ACCIDENTInevitable Accidents are, as evident from the name, events which could not have been prevented by the parties through the exercise of ordinary care, caution, and skill. An inevitable accident is one which could not be possibly prevented by the exercise of ordinary care, caution and skill and hence it does not apply to anything which either of the parties might have avoided. Sir Frederick Pollock defined an inevitable accident as an accident which is not avoidable by any precautions, a reasonable man could have expected to take.In the past cases, the defence of inevitable accident used to be very relevant in actions for trespass when the older rule was that even an innocent trespass was actionable unless the defendant could prove that the accident was caused due to it being inevitable in nature. The term "inevitable accident" is used in instances where the accidents occur by chance and in the absence of human error. Both of these are similar in terms of negligence, if it is proved by the plaintiff that there was negligence on the part of the defendant then the defendant will not be able to escape liability by using these defenses. The plea of an inevitable accident has lost its practicality in todays day and age, as it has lost its utility since the principle of absolute liability, applies even in the absence of defendants negligence and with the growth in the dimension of science the number of accidents which were considered to be inevitable is fastly diminishing.To sum it all up, an inevitable accident is an event which happens not only without the concurrence of the will of a man but in spite of all the efforts that a man may put on his part to prevent it from happening i.e. an accident which is physically unavoidable and cant be prevented by human skill or foresight.Q.Nothing is said to be done or believed in good faith which is done or believed without proper care and caution. A young boy was hit by a car resulting in injuries and bleeding. X who witnessed the accident, took the boy to a local dispensary. Since there was no one at the dispensary, he decided to give stitches to boy himself. An infection was contracted by the boy as a result of stitches. X was arrested but he pleaded that his actions were carried out in good faith. Decide.a)The actions of X fall under the definition of good faith as his intention was to give medical care to a person, who urgently needed it.b)The actions of X do not fall under good faith as he was uneducated in the matters of medicine and surgery.c)The actions of X fall under good faith as the boy would have lost his life, had X not attended to him.d)The actions of X were not done in good faith as he could have taken him to another hospital.Correct 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 Passage - 1The law of torts has been evolving throughout its existence. There are certain principles which are used to counter claims for compensation. These counterclaims or defences are used to evict those citizens from tortious liability who have been unfairly been implicated with wrong claims imposed on them. These defences have been formulated from time to time to keep up with the basis of imposition of tortious liability on a person.INEVITABLE ACCIDENTInevitable Accidents are, as evident from the name, events which could not have been prevented by the parties through the exercise of ordinary care, caution, and skill. An inevitable accident is one which could not be possibly prevented by the exercise of ordinary care, caution and skill and hence it does not apply to anything which either of the parties might have avoided. Sir Frederick Pollock defined an inevitable accident as an accident which is not avoidable by any precautions, a reasonable man could have expected to take.In the past cases, the defence of inevitable accident used to be very relevant in actions for trespass when the older rule was that even an innocent trespass was actionable unless the defendant could prove that the accident was caused due to it being inevitable in nature. The term "inevitable accident" is used in instances where the accidents occur by chance and in the absence of human error. Both of these are similar in terms of negligence, if it is proved by the plaintiff that there was negligence on the part of the defendant then the defendant will not be able to escape liability by using these defenses. The plea of an inevitable accident has lost its practicality in todays day and age, as it has lost its utility since the principle of absolute liability, applies even in the absence of defendants negligence and with the growth in the dimension of science the number of accidents which were considered to be inevitable is fastly diminishing.To sum it all up, an inevitable accident is an event which happens not only without the concurrence of the will of a man but in spite of all the efforts that a man may put on his part to prevent it from happening i.e. an accident which is physically unavoidable and cant be prevented by human skill or foresight.Q.Nothing is said to be done or believed in good faith which is done or believed without proper care and caution. A young boy was hit by a car resulting in injuries and bleeding. X who witnessed the accident, took the boy to a local dispensary. Since there was no one at the dispensary, he decided to give stitches to boy himself. An infection was contracted by the boy as a result of stitches. X was arrested but he pleaded that his actions were carried out in good faith. Decide.a)The actions of X fall under the definition of good faith as his intention was to give medical care to a person, who urgently needed it.b)The actions of X do not fall under good faith as he was uneducated in the matters of medicine and surgery.c)The actions of X fall under good faith as the boy would have lost his life, had X not attended to him.d)The actions of X were not done in good faith as he could have taken him to another hospital.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Passage - 1The law of torts has been evolving throughout its existence. There are certain principles which are used to counter claims for compensation. These counterclaims or defences are used to evict those citizens from tortious liability who have been unfairly been implicated with wrong claims imposed on them. These defences have been formulated from time to time to keep up with the basis of imposition of tortious liability on a person.INEVITABLE ACCIDENTInevitable Accidents are, as evident from the name, events which could not have been prevented by the parties through the exercise of ordinary care, caution, and skill. An inevitable accident is one which could not be possibly prevented by the exercise of ordinary care, caution and skill and hence it does not apply to anything which either of the parties might have avoided. Sir Frederick Pollock defined an inevitable accident as an accident which is not avoidable by any precautions, a reasonable man could have expected to take.In the past cases, the defence of inevitable accident used to be very relevant in actions for trespass when the older rule was that even an innocent trespass was actionable unless the defendant could prove that the accident was caused due to it being inevitable in nature. The term "inevitable accident" is used in instances where the accidents occur by chance and in the absence of human error. Both of these are similar in terms of negligence, if it is proved by the plaintiff that there was negligence on the part of the defendant then the defendant will not be able to escape liability by using these defenses. The plea of an inevitable accident has lost its practicality in todays day and age, as it has lost its utility since the principle of absolute liability, applies even in the absence of defendants negligence and with the growth in the dimension of science the number of accidents which were considered to be inevitable is fastly diminishing.To sum it all up, an inevitable accident is an event which happens not only without the concurrence of the will of a man but in spite of all the efforts that a man may put on his part to prevent it from happening i.e. an accident which is physically unavoidable and cant be prevented by human skill or foresight.Q.Nothing is said to be done or believed in good faith which is done or believed without proper care and caution. A young boy was hit by a car resulting in injuries and bleeding. X who witnessed the accident, took the boy to a local dispensary. Since there was no one at the dispensary, he decided to give stitches to boy himself. An infection was contracted by the boy as a result of stitches. X was arrested but he pleaded that his actions were carried out in good faith. Decide.a)The actions of X fall under the definition of good faith as his intention was to give medical care to a person, who urgently needed it.b)The actions of X do not fall under good faith as he was uneducated in the matters of medicine and surgery.c)The actions of X fall under good faith as the boy would have lost his life, had X not attended to him.d)The actions of X were not done in good faith as he could have taken him to another hospital.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Passage - 1The law of torts has been evolving throughout its existence. There are certain principles which are used to counter claims for compensation. These counterclaims or defences are used to evict those citizens from tortious liability who have been unfairly been implicated with wrong claims imposed on them. These defences have been formulated from time to time to keep up with the basis of imposition of tortious liability on a person.INEVITABLE ACCIDENTInevitable Accidents are, as evident from the name, events which could not have been prevented by the parties through the exercise of ordinary care, caution, and skill. An inevitable accident is one which could not be possibly prevented by the exercise of ordinary care, caution and skill and hence it does not apply to anything which either of the parties might have avoided. Sir Frederick Pollock defined an inevitable accident as an accident which is not avoidable by any precautions, a reasonable man could have expected to take.In the past cases, the defence of inevitable accident used to be very relevant in actions for trespass when the older rule was that even an innocent trespass was actionable unless the defendant could prove that the accident was caused due to it being inevitable in nature. The term "inevitable accident" is used in instances where the accidents occur by chance and in the absence of human error. Both of these are similar in terms of negligence, if it is proved by the plaintiff that there was negligence on the part of the defendant then the defendant will not be able to escape liability by using these defenses. The plea of an inevitable accident has lost its practicality in todays day and age, as it has lost its utility since the principle of absolute liability, applies even in the absence of defendants negligence and with the growth in the dimension of science the number of accidents which were considered to be inevitable is fastly diminishing.To sum it all up, an inevitable accident is an event which happens not only without the concurrence of the will of a man but in spite of all the efforts that a man may put on his part to prevent it from happening i.e. an accident which is physically unavoidable and cant be prevented by human skill or foresight.Q.Nothing is said to be done or believed in good faith which is done or believed without proper care and caution. A young boy was hit by a car resulting in injuries and bleeding. X who witnessed the accident, took the boy to a local dispensary. Since there was no one at the dispensary, he decided to give stitches to boy himself. An infection was contracted by the boy as a result of stitches. X was arrested but he pleaded that his actions were carried out in good faith. Decide.a)The actions of X fall under the definition of good faith as his intention was to give medical care to a person, who urgently needed it.b)The actions of X do not fall under good faith as he was uneducated in the matters of medicine and surgery.c)The actions of X fall under good faith as the boy would have lost his life, had X not attended to him.d)The actions of X were not done in good faith as he could have taken him to another hospital.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Passage - 1The law of torts has been evolving throughout its existence. There are certain principles which are used to counter claims for compensation. These counterclaims or defences are used to evict those citizens from tortious liability who have been unfairly been implicated with wrong claims imposed on them. These defences have been formulated from time to time to keep up with the basis of imposition of tortious liability on a person.INEVITABLE ACCIDENTInevitable Accidents are, as evident from the name, events which could not have been prevented by the parties through the exercise of ordinary care, caution, and skill. An inevitable accident is one which could not be possibly prevented by the exercise of ordinary care, caution and skill and hence it does not apply to anything which either of the parties might have avoided. Sir Frederick Pollock defined an inevitable accident as an accident which is not avoidable by any precautions, a reasonable man could have expected to take.In the past cases, the defence of inevitable accident used to be very relevant in actions for trespass when the older rule was that even an innocent trespass was actionable unless the defendant could prove that the accident was caused due to it being inevitable in nature. The term "inevitable accident" is used in instances where the accidents occur by chance and in the absence of human error. Both of these are similar in terms of negligence, if it is proved by the plaintiff that there was negligence on the part of the defendant then the defendant will not be able to escape liability by using these defenses. The plea of an inevitable accident has lost its practicality in todays day and age, as it has lost its utility since the principle of absolute liability, applies even in the absence of defendants negligence and with the growth in the dimension of science the number of accidents which were considered to be inevitable is fastly diminishing.To sum it all up, an inevitable accident is an event which happens not only without the concurrence of the will of a man but in spite of all the efforts that a man may put on his part to prevent it from happening i.e. an accident which is physically unavoidable and cant be prevented by human skill or foresight.Q.Nothing is said to be done or believed in good faith which is done or believed without proper care and caution. A young boy was hit by a car resulting in injuries and bleeding. X who witnessed the accident, took the boy to a local dispensary. Since there was no one at the dispensary, he decided to give stitches to boy himself. An infection was contracted by the boy as a result of stitches. X was arrested but he pleaded that his actions were carried out in good faith. Decide.a)The actions of X fall under the definition of good faith as his intention was to give medical care to a person, who urgently needed it.b)The actions of X do not fall under good faith as he was uneducated in the matters of medicine and surgery.c)The actions of X fall under good faith as the boy would have lost his life, had X not attended to him.d)The actions of X were not done in good faith as he could have taken him to another hospital.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Passage - 1The law of torts has been evolving throughout its existence. There are certain principles which are used to counter claims for compensation. These counterclaims or defences are used to evict those citizens from tortious liability who have been unfairly been implicated with wrong claims imposed on them. These defences have been formulated from time to time to keep up with the basis of imposition of tortious liability on a person.INEVITABLE ACCIDENTInevitable Accidents are, as evident from the name, events which could not have been prevented by the parties through the exercise of ordinary care, caution, and skill. An inevitable accident is one which could not be possibly prevented by the exercise of ordinary care, caution and skill and hence it does not apply to anything which either of the parties might have avoided. Sir Frederick Pollock defined an inevitable accident as an accident which is not avoidable by any precautions, a reasonable man could have expected to take.In the past cases, the defence of inevitable accident used to be very relevant in actions for trespass when the older rule was that even an innocent trespass was actionable unless the defendant could prove that the accident was caused due to it being inevitable in nature. The term "inevitable accident" is used in instances where the accidents occur by chance and in the absence of human error. Both of these are similar in terms of negligence, if it is proved by the plaintiff that there was negligence on the part of the defendant then the defendant will not be able to escape liability by using these defenses. The plea of an inevitable accident has lost its practicality in todays day and age, as it has lost its utility since the principle of absolute liability, applies even in the absence of defendants negligence and with the growth in the dimension of science the number of accidents which were considered to be inevitable is fastly diminishing.To sum it all up, an inevitable accident is an event which happens not only without the concurrence of the will of a man but in spite of all the efforts that a man may put on his part to prevent it from happening i.e. an accident which is physically unavoidable and cant be prevented by human skill or foresight.Q.Nothing is said to be done or believed in good faith which is done or believed without proper care and caution. A young boy was hit by a car resulting in injuries and bleeding. X who witnessed the accident, took the boy to a local dispensary. Since there was no one at the dispensary, he decided to give stitches to boy himself. An infection was contracted by the boy as a result of stitches. X was arrested but he pleaded that his actions were carried out in good faith. Decide.a)The actions of X fall under the definition of good faith as his intention was to give medical care to a person, who urgently needed it.b)The actions of X do not fall under good faith as he was uneducated in the matters of medicine and surgery.c)The actions of X fall under good faith as the boy would have lost his life, had X not attended to him.d)The actions of X were not done in good faith as he could have taken him to another hospital.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.