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 andquot;inevitable accidentandquot; 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 an offence which is done by accident and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner and with proper care and caution. Ram is a police officer deputed at DhaulaKuan Police Station, New Delhi. One day, Ram went for night patrolling after consuming alcohol. During his duty, Ram saw Rawan (a dreaded criminal) trying to break open an ATM Machine. Ram started chasing him as he started to flee. Whilst chasing Rawan, Ram ran his jeep over pedestrians sleeping on the road. Which of the following derivations is correct?a)Ram is not liable as he was engaged in a lawful act whilst chasing a criminal.b)Ram is not liable for an offence as it was committed without criminal intention.c)Ram is liable for an offence as his act was conducted in an unlawful manner.d)Ram is liable for an offence as his act was conducted without proper care and caution.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Passage - 1The law of torts has been evolving...

Passage - 1

The 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 ACCIDENT
Inevitable 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 today's day and age, as it has lost its utility since the principle of absolute liability, applies even in the absence of defendant's 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 can't be prevented by human skill or foresight.

Q. Nothing is an offence which is done by accident and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner and with proper care and caution. Ram is a police officer deputed at DhaulaKuan Police Station, New Delhi. One day, Ram went for night patrolling after consuming alcohol. During his duty, Ram saw Rawan (a dreaded criminal) trying to break open an ATM Machine. Ram started chasing him as he started to flee. Whilst chasing Rawan, Ram ran his jeep over pedestrians sleeping on the road. Which of the following derivations is correct?

a)
Ram is not liable as he was engaged in a lawful act whilst chasing a criminal.
b)
Ram is not liable for an offence as it was committed without criminal intention.
c)
Ram is liable for an offence as his act was conducted in an unlawful manner.
d)
Ram is liable for an offence as his act was conducted without proper care and caution.

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

Join for Free

Join for Free

Most Upvoted Answer

Passage - 1The law of torts has been evolving throughout its existence...

Explanation of Liability in Ram's Case
In the given scenario, Ram, a police officer, chased a criminal while under the influence of alcohol. This act resulted in an accident where pedestrians were harmed. The determination of liability revolves around whether Ram exercised proper care and caution during his lawful duty.
Understanding the Options Presented
- Option A: Lawful Act
- While Ram was performing a lawful act (chasing a criminal), the law acknowledges that lawful acts can still result in liability if not executed properly.
- Option B: No Criminal Intention
- The lack of criminal intention does not absolve Ram from liability. Negligence can occur even without intent to harm.
- Option C: Unlawful Manner
- Although Ram was engaged in a lawful act, the manner in which he conducted this act (driving under the influence) raises questions of legality and responsibility.
- Option D: Lack of Proper Care and Caution
- This is the correct option. Driving a jeep while intoxicated demonstrates a clear lack of care and caution. The law requires individuals, especially police officers, to operate vehicles with a duty of care to others. Ram's actions, given his state, directly contributed to the accident, making him liable for negligence.
Conclusion
In summary, Ram is liable for the offense because he failed to exercise the necessary care and caution expected of a police officer, especially when performing his duties. This case illustrates that even in pursuit of a lawful objective, negligence can lead to tortious liability.

Answered by Glance Learning Institute · View profile

Free Test

FREE

Test: Legal Reasoning - 1
30 Ques | 30 Min

Start Free Test

View all free CLAT tests

Community Answer

Passage - 1The law of torts has been evolving throughout its existence...

The question asks you to apply the idea of the passage to a given situation with the given principle of law. You have to assimilate the inference and look at the facts of the case and evaluate the answer choices. Although Ram is acting within the scope of his duty, but drunken driving on duty amounts to failure to exercise due care and caution.
Incorrect Answers
None of the other options sets out views that are consistent with those of the author in the passage above.

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

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.Uday owned XY Courier Works, a firm of shipments and carriers. One day Uday received a wooden carton from their old trusted client at New Delhi office which was to be shipped to Mumbai through their "Express - Same day delivery" service. The carton was ordinary in its appearance and carried no suspicion as to its content and since it had reached two hours later than the usual time, it was immediately sent for shipment, without anything being said or asked. On arrival at Mumbai, the carton was taken to Udays office (which had been rented from Roshni) in the regular course of business. There some greasy liquid substance was found leaking from it. An employee of Uday proceeded to open the case with a hammer and chisel. The contents, in fact being nitro-glycerine, exploded. All the persons present in Udays office were killed and the office was destroyed. Action was brought by Roshni for damages. Uday claims the defence of inevitable accident. Decide.

View answer

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.The master is liable for all the acts done by his servant during the course of employment. Nina had a 4 horse driven carriage which she used to rent for marriage purposes. The horses were very tame and listened to its caretaker. One day she asked her servant Rinku to take the carriage to the customers desired destination and Rinku did likewise. At the time of the baraat ceremony, the groom was sitting on the carriage and the baraat was moving towards the wedding venue. In the meantime, 2-3 dogs came and started barking at the horses. The horses panicked and started to run. Rinku tried to calm them down but they became so unmanageable that he could not stop them. While unsuccessfully trying to turn a corner safely, the carriage tumbled and the groom sustained injuries. The customer asked Nina for compensation.

View answer

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.

View answer

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.X was digging earth with a spade. The top part of the spade got disjointed and hit Y, who was collecting the mud nearby. On inspection it was found that the spade was rusted, which resulted in the accident. X pleaded the defence of accident. Decide.

View answer

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.An inevitable accident is that which could not possibly be prevented by the exercise of ordinary care, caution and skill. Raju had a gun, which he was cleaning when he was called to attend an urgent matter at his office. He left the gun empty at the table. While he was at his office, Bhola, his servant took the gun and went out for shooting and in a hurry kept the loaded gun on the table when he returned. Raju later took the gun and thinking that the gun was empty, started cleaning it again and accidently fired which killed Madhulika, his daughter who was playing in the room. If Bhola while unloading the gun in a hurry, shot Madhulika by mistake, would he be liable?

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Crash Course for CLAT

CLAT Mock Test Series 2026

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

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 an offence which is done by accident and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner and with proper care and caution. Ram is a police officer deputed at DhaulaKuan Police Station, New Delhi. One day, Ram went for night patrolling after consuming alcohol. During his duty, Ram saw Rawan (a dreaded criminal) trying to break open an ATM Machine. Ram started chasing him as he started to flee. Whilst chasing Rawan, Ram ran his jeep over pedestrians sleeping on the road. Which of the following derivations is correct?a)Ram is not liable as he was engaged in a lawful act whilst chasing a criminal.b)Ram is not liable for an offence as it was committed without criminal intention.c)Ram is liable for an offence as his act was conducted in an unlawful manner.d)Ram is liable for an offence as his act was conducted without proper care and caution.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

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 an offence which is done by accident and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner and with proper care and caution. Ram is a police officer deputed at DhaulaKuan Police Station, New Delhi. One day, Ram went for night patrolling after consuming alcohol. During his duty, Ram saw Rawan (a dreaded criminal) trying to break open an ATM Machine. Ram started chasing him as he started to flee. Whilst chasing Rawan, Ram ran his jeep over pedestrians sleeping on the road. Which of the following derivations is correct?a)Ram is not liable as he was engaged in a lawful act whilst chasing a criminal.b)Ram is not liable for an offence as it was committed without criminal intention.c)Ram is liable for an offence as his act was conducted in an unlawful manner.d)Ram is liable for an offence as his act was conducted without proper care and caution.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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 an offence which is done by accident and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner and with proper care and caution. Ram is a police officer deputed at DhaulaKuan Police Station, New Delhi. One day, Ram went for night patrolling after consuming alcohol. During his duty, Ram saw Rawan (a dreaded criminal) trying to break open an ATM Machine. Ram started chasing him as he started to flee. Whilst chasing Rawan, Ram ran his jeep over pedestrians sleeping on the road. Which of the following derivations is correct?a)Ram is not liable as he was engaged in a lawful act whilst chasing a criminal.b)Ram is not liable for an offence as it was committed without criminal intention.c)Ram is liable for an offence as his act was conducted in an unlawful manner.d)Ram is liable for an offence as his act was conducted without proper care and caution.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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 an offence which is done by accident and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner and with proper care and caution. Ram is a police officer deputed at DhaulaKuan Police Station, New Delhi. One day, Ram went for night patrolling after consuming alcohol. During his duty, Ram saw Rawan (a dreaded criminal) trying to break open an ATM Machine. Ram started chasing him as he started to flee. Whilst chasing Rawan, Ram ran his jeep over pedestrians sleeping on the road. Which of the following derivations is correct?a)Ram is not liable as he was engaged in a lawful act whilst chasing a criminal.b)Ram is not liable for an offence as it was committed without criminal intention.c)Ram is liable for an offence as his act was conducted in an unlawful manner.d)Ram is liable for an offence as his act was conducted without proper care and caution.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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 an offence which is done by accident and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner and with proper care and caution. Ram is a police officer deputed at DhaulaKuan Police Station, New Delhi. One day, Ram went for night patrolling after consuming alcohol. During his duty, Ram saw Rawan (a dreaded criminal) trying to break open an ATM Machine. Ram started chasing him as he started to flee. Whilst chasing Rawan, Ram ran his jeep over pedestrians sleeping on the road. Which of the following derivations is correct?a)Ram is not liable as he was engaged in a lawful act whilst chasing a criminal.b)Ram is not liable for an offence as it was committed without criminal intention.c)Ram is liable for an offence as his act was conducted in an unlawful manner.d)Ram is liable for an offence as his act was conducted without proper care and caution.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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 an offence which is done by accident and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner and with proper care and caution. Ram is a police officer deputed at DhaulaKuan Police Station, New Delhi. One day, Ram went for night patrolling after consuming alcohol. During his duty, Ram saw Rawan (a dreaded criminal) trying to break open an ATM Machine. Ram started chasing him as he started to flee. Whilst chasing Rawan, Ram ran his jeep over pedestrians sleeping on the road. Which of the following derivations is correct?a)Ram is not liable as he was engaged in a lawful act whilst chasing a criminal.b)Ram is not liable for an offence as it was committed without criminal intention.c)Ram is liable for an offence as his act was conducted in an unlawful manner.d)Ram is liable for an offence as his act was conducted without proper care and caution.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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 an offence which is done by accident and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner and with proper care and caution. Ram is a police officer deputed at DhaulaKuan Police Station, New Delhi. One day, Ram went for night patrolling after consuming alcohol. During his duty, Ram saw Rawan (a dreaded criminal) trying to break open an ATM Machine. Ram started chasing him as he started to flee. Whilst chasing Rawan, Ram ran his jeep over pedestrians sleeping on the road. Which of the following derivations is correct?a)Ram is not liable as he was engaged in a lawful act whilst chasing a criminal.b)Ram is not liable for an offence as it was committed without criminal intention.c)Ram is liable for an offence as his act was conducted in an unlawful manner.d)Ram is liable for an offence as his act was conducted without proper care and caution.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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 an offence which is done by accident and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner and with proper care and caution. Ram is a police officer deputed at DhaulaKuan Police Station, New Delhi. One day, Ram went for night patrolling after consuming alcohol. During his duty, Ram saw Rawan (a dreaded criminal) trying to break open an ATM Machine. Ram started chasing him as he started to flee. Whilst chasing Rawan, Ram ran his jeep over pedestrians sleeping on the road. Which of the following derivations is correct?a)Ram is not liable as he was engaged in a lawful act whilst chasing a criminal.b)Ram is not liable for an offence as it was committed without criminal intention.c)Ram is liable for an offence as his act was conducted in an unlawful manner.d)Ram is liable for an offence as his act was conducted without proper care and caution.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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 an offence which is done by accident and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner and with proper care and caution. Ram is a police officer deputed at DhaulaKuan Police Station, New Delhi. One day, Ram went for night patrolling after consuming alcohol. During his duty, Ram saw Rawan (a dreaded criminal) trying to break open an ATM Machine. Ram started chasing him as he started to flee. Whilst chasing Rawan, Ram ran his jeep over pedestrians sleeping on the road. Which of the following derivations is correct?a)Ram is not liable as he was engaged in a lawful act whilst chasing a criminal.b)Ram is not liable for an offence as it was committed without criminal intention.c)Ram is liable for an offence as his act was conducted in an unlawful manner.d)Ram is liable for an offence as his act was conducted without proper care and caution.Correct answer is option 'D'. 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 an offence which is done by accident and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner and with proper care and caution. Ram is a police officer deputed at DhaulaKuan Police Station, New Delhi. One day, Ram went for night patrolling after consuming alcohol. During his duty, Ram saw Rawan (a dreaded criminal) trying to break open an ATM Machine. Ram started chasing him as he started to flee. Whilst chasing Rawan, Ram ran his jeep over pedestrians sleeping on the road. Which of the following derivations is correct?a)Ram is not liable as he was engaged in a lawful act whilst chasing a criminal.b)Ram is not liable for an offence as it was committed without criminal intention.c)Ram is liable for an offence as his act was conducted in an unlawful manner.d)Ram is liable for an offence as his act was conducted without proper care and caution.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam