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.Ankit was a college student and was living with his grandfather, who had recently got a kidney transplant treatment done. Though he was doing well, he was not allowed to be administered any medication without doctors consultation. One day, his grandfather slipped in the bathroom and twisted his ankle. Ankit got an ointment to reduce pain and rubbed it well on his ankle. After two hours, his grandfather suffered a severe pain in his abdomen and by the time he was taken to the hospital, he passed away on the way. It was diagnosed that the pain killer ointment seeped through his skin and mixed with the blood because of which the kidneys failed. Is Ankit liable for his grandfathers death?a)Ankit is not liable for his grandfathers death because he did what a reasonable prudent man would do.b)Ankit is not liable for the death of his grandfather because he took ordinary care.c)Ankit is liable because he did not consult the doctor before applying the ointment.d)Ankit is liable because his grandfather was a kidney patient and any reaction to medicine is forseeable.Correct 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 > 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. Ankit was a college student and was living with his grandfather, who had recently got a kidney transplant treatment done. Though he was doing well, he was not allowed to be administered any medication without doctor's consultation. One day, his grandfather slipped in the bathroom and twisted his ankle. Ankit got an ointment to reduce pain and rubbed it well on his ankle. After two hours, his grandfather suffered a severe pain in his abdomen and by the time he was taken to the hospital, he passed away on the way. It was diagnosed that the pain killer ointment seeped through his skin and mixed with the blood because of which the kidneys failed. Is Ankit liable for his grandfather's death?

a)
Ankit is not liable for his grandfather's death because he did what a reasonable prudent man would do.
b)
Ankit is not liable for the death of his grandfather because he took ordinary care.
c)
Ankit is liable because he did not consult the doctor before applying the ointment.
d)
Ankit is liable because his grandfather was a kidney patient and any reaction to medicine is forseeable.

Correct answer is option 'C'. 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...

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.
Correct Answer is (c)
This is not a case of inevitable accident as it is clearly mentioned in the facts that Ankit's grandfather was not allowed to be administered any medication without doctor's consultation. In this case Ankit could have prevented the accident by exercise of ordinary care, caution and skill. Incorrect Answers
None of the other options sets out views that are consistent with those of the author in the passage above.

Answered by Glance Learning Institute · View profile

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

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 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.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. Ankit was a college student and was living with his grandfather, who had recently got a kidney transplant treatment done. Though he was doing well, he was not allowed to be administered any medication without doctor's consultation. One day, his grandfather slipped in the bathroom and twisted his ankle. Ankit got an ointment to reduce pain and rubbed it well on his ankle. After two hours, his grandfather suffered a severe pain in his abdomen and by the time he was taken to the hospital, he passed away on the way. It was diagnosed that the pain killer ointment seeped through his skin and mixed with the blood because of which the kidneys failed. Is Ankit liable for his grandfather's death?

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

The Supreme Court clearance for the Central Vista redevelopment project that will give the country a new Parliament complex marks a big win for the government. Yet citizens will have little to cheer about the peremptory manner in which the project was cleared. Government had pitched the redevelopment citing the inadequacies of the current Parliament building and many of the “Bhawans” housing central ministries. This has failed to convince heritage conservationists and transparency activists. They are upset over the short shrift given to public consultations and in their words, the government’s tendency for “rule by law rather than rule of law”.Both the majority and dissenting verdicts refused, rightly, to get drawn into non-justiciable arguments like the rationale for displacing Parliament from its current complex or the aesthetics and undesirability of redevelopment in a heritage zone and the irrevocable harm done to heritage buildings and overall architectural harmony of the area. Yet the fact that these arguments come up before a constitutional court is a reflection of governmental failure to meaningfully engage with the public at the project’s commencement.Modes like discussion by both Houses of Parliament and public hearings could have helped the government persuade concerned citizens. In the end, government’s executive prerogative must prevail, but not without it having invested significant effort in due process and consensus. After all, at stake is the future of a building with an extraordinary past. This is where the Constitution was adopted besides serving as the “temple of democracy” for several decades. Countries with storied histories are known to proudly showcase their key institutions of democracy to highlight antiquity and unbroken tradition. No less contestable is proceeding with expensive redevelopment plans during an economic crisis, which offered excuses for cutting MPLADS funds and GST compensation that act as beneficial capital transfers to the grassroots.While both judgments did highlight the importance of transparency, public consultations and environmental protection, the minority verdict goes further. It quashed the land use change and directed the central authority to put all drawings, layout plans and explanatory memoranda on its website, invite suggestions and objections, and conduct public hearings before the Heritage Conservation Committee ahead of granting permissions in accordance with the law. Liberties taken with democratic due process, even if not found to be justiciable in courts, rarely augur well in the long run. The ongoing farmers’ agitation also drives home the merits of greater public consultation.Q. What is the meaning of the term ‘antiquity’?

View answer

The Supreme Court clearance for the Central Vista redevelopment project that will give the country a new Parliament complex marks a big win for the government. Yet citizens will have little to cheer about the peremptory manner in which the project was cleared. Government had pitched the redevelopment citing the inadequacies of the current Parliament building and many of the “Bhawans” housing central ministries. This has failed to convince heritage conservationists and transparency activists. They are upset over the short shrift given to public consultations and in their words, the government’s tendency for “rule by law rather than rule of law”.Both the majority and dissenting verdicts refused, rightly, to get drawn into non-justiciable arguments like the rationale for displacing Parliament from its current complex or the aesthetics and undesirability of redevelopment in a heritage zone and the irrevocable harm done to heritage buildings and overall architectural harmony of the area. Yet the fact that these arguments come up before a constitutional court is a reflection of governmental failure to meaningfully engage with the public at the project’s commencement.Modes like discussion by both Houses of Parliament and public hearings could have helped the government persuade concerned citizens. In the end, government’s executive prerogative must prevail, but not without it having invested significant effort in due process and consensus. After all, at stake is the future of a building with an extraordinary past. This is where the Constitution was adopted besides serving as the “temple of democracy” for several decades. Countries with storied histories are known to proudly showcase their key institutions of democracy to highlight antiquity and unbroken tradition. No less contestable is proceeding with expensive redevelopment plans during an economic crisis, which offered excuses for cutting MPLADS funds and GST compensation that act as beneficial capital transfers to the grassroots.While both judgments did highlight the importance of transparency, public consultations and environmental protection, the minority verdict goes further. It quashed the land use change and directed the central authority to put all drawings, layout plans and explanatory memoranda on its website, invite suggestions and objections, and conduct public hearings before the Heritage Conservation Committee ahead of granting permissions in accordance with the law. Liberties taken with democratic due process, even if not found to be justiciable in courts, rarely augur well in the long run. The ongoing farmers’ agitation also drives home the merits of greater public consultation.Q. What is the basic nature of the passage?

View answer

The Supreme Court clearance for the Central Vista redevelopment project that will give the country a new Parliament complex marks a big win for the government. Yet citizens will have little to cheer about the peremptory manner in which the project was cleared. Government had pitched the redevelopment citing the inadequacies of the current Parliament building and many of the “Bhawans” housing central ministries. This has failed to convince heritage conservationists and transparency activists. They are upset over the short shrift given to public consultations and in their words, the government’s tendency for “rule by law rather than rule of law”.Both the majority and dissenting verdicts refused, rightly, to get drawn into non-justiciable arguments like the rationale for displacing Parliament from its current complex or the aesthetics and undesirability of redevelopment in a heritage zone and the irrevocable harm done to heritage buildings and overall architectural harmony of the area. Yet the fact that these arguments come up before a constitutional court is a reflection of governmental failure to meaningfully engage with the public at the project’s commencement.Modes like discussion by both Houses of Parliament and public hearings could have helped the government persuade concerned citizens. In the end, government’s executive prerogative must prevail, but not without it having invested significant effort in due process and consensus. After all, at stake is the future of a building with an extraordinary past. This is where the Constitution was adopted besides serving as the “temple of democracy” for several decades. Countries with storied histories are known to proudly showcase their key institutions of democracy to highlight antiquity and unbroken tradition. No less contestable is proceeding with expensive redevelopment plans during an economic crisis, which offered excuses for cutting MPLADS funds and GST compensation that act as beneficial capital transfers to the grassroots.While both judgments did highlight the importance of transparency, public consultations and environmental protection, the minority verdict goes further. It quashed the land use change and directed the central authority to put all drawings, layout plans and explanatory memoranda on its website, invite suggestions and objections, and conduct public hearings before the Heritage Conservation Committee ahead of granting permissions in accordance with the law. Liberties taken with democratic due process, even if not found to be justiciable in courts, rarely augur well in the long run. The ongoing farmers’ agitation also drives home the merits of greater public consultation.Q. Which of the following seems to be the most appropriate title to the passage?

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.Ankit was a college student and was living with his grandfather, who had recently got a kidney transplant treatment done. Though he was doing well, he was not allowed to be administered any medication without doctors consultation. One day, his grandfather slipped in the bathroom and twisted his ankle. Ankit got an ointment to reduce pain and rubbed it well on his ankle. After two hours, his grandfather suffered a severe pain in his abdomen and by the time he was taken to the hospital, he passed away on the way. It was diagnosed that the pain killer ointment seeped through his skin and mixed with the blood because of which the kidneys failed. Is Ankit liable for his grandfathers death?a)Ankit is not liable for his grandfathers death because he did what a reasonable prudent man would do.b)Ankit is not liable for the death of his grandfather because he took ordinary care.c)Ankit is liable because he did not consult the doctor before applying the ointment.d)Ankit is liable because his grandfather was a kidney patient and any reaction to medicine is forseeable.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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.Ankit was a college student and was living with his grandfather, who had recently got a kidney transplant treatment done. Though he was doing well, he was not allowed to be administered any medication without doctors consultation. One day, his grandfather slipped in the bathroom and twisted his ankle. Ankit got an ointment to reduce pain and rubbed it well on his ankle. After two hours, his grandfather suffered a severe pain in his abdomen and by the time he was taken to the hospital, he passed away on the way. It was diagnosed that the pain killer ointment seeped through his skin and mixed with the blood because of which the kidneys failed. Is Ankit liable for his grandfathers death?a)Ankit is not liable for his grandfathers death because he did what a reasonable prudent man would do.b)Ankit is not liable for the death of his grandfather because he took ordinary care.c)Ankit is liable because he did not consult the doctor before applying the ointment.d)Ankit is liable because his grandfather was a kidney patient and any reaction to medicine is forseeable.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about 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.Ankit was a college student and was living with his grandfather, who had recently got a kidney transplant treatment done. Though he was doing well, he was not allowed to be administered any medication without doctors consultation. One day, his grandfather slipped in the bathroom and twisted his ankle. Ankit got an ointment to reduce pain and rubbed it well on his ankle. After two hours, his grandfather suffered a severe pain in his abdomen and by the time he was taken to the hospital, he passed away on the way. It was diagnosed that the pain killer ointment seeped through his skin and mixed with the blood because of which the kidneys failed. Is Ankit liable for his grandfathers death?a)Ankit is not liable for his grandfathers death because he did what a reasonable prudent man would do.b)Ankit is not liable for the death of his grandfather because he took ordinary care.c)Ankit is liable because he did not consult the doctor before applying the ointment.d)Ankit is liable because his grandfather was a kidney patient and any reaction to medicine is forseeable.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for 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.Ankit was a college student and was living with his grandfather, who had recently got a kidney transplant treatment done. Though he was doing well, he was not allowed to be administered any medication without doctors consultation. One day, his grandfather slipped in the bathroom and twisted his ankle. Ankit got an ointment to reduce pain and rubbed it well on his ankle. After two hours, his grandfather suffered a severe pain in his abdomen and by the time he was taken to the hospital, he passed away on the way. It was diagnosed that the pain killer ointment seeped through his skin and mixed with the blood because of which the kidneys failed. Is Ankit liable for his grandfathers death?a)Ankit is not liable for his grandfathers death because he did what a reasonable prudent man would do.b)Ankit is not liable for the death of his grandfather because he took ordinary care.c)Ankit is liable because he did not consult the doctor before applying the ointment.d)Ankit is liable because his grandfather was a kidney patient and any reaction to medicine is forseeable.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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.Ankit was a college student and was living with his grandfather, who had recently got a kidney transplant treatment done. Though he was doing well, he was not allowed to be administered any medication without doctors consultation. One day, his grandfather slipped in the bathroom and twisted his ankle. Ankit got an ointment to reduce pain and rubbed it well on his ankle. After two hours, his grandfather suffered a severe pain in his abdomen and by the time he was taken to the hospital, he passed away on the way. It was diagnosed that the pain killer ointment seeped through his skin and mixed with the blood because of which the kidneys failed. Is Ankit liable for his grandfathers death?a)Ankit is not liable for his grandfathers death because he did what a reasonable prudent man would do.b)Ankit is not liable for the death of his grandfather because he took ordinary care.c)Ankit is liable because he did not consult the doctor before applying the ointment.d)Ankit is liable because his grandfather was a kidney patient and any reaction to medicine is forseeable.Correct 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 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.Ankit was a college student and was living with his grandfather, who had recently got a kidney transplant treatment done. Though he was doing well, he was not allowed to be administered any medication without doctors consultation. One day, his grandfather slipped in the bathroom and twisted his ankle. Ankit got an ointment to reduce pain and rubbed it well on his ankle. After two hours, his grandfather suffered a severe pain in his abdomen and by the time he was taken to the hospital, he passed away on the way. It was diagnosed that the pain killer ointment seeped through his skin and mixed with the blood because of which the kidneys failed. Is Ankit liable for his grandfathers death?a)Ankit is not liable for his grandfathers death because he did what a reasonable prudent man would do.b)Ankit is not liable for the death of his grandfather because he took ordinary care.c)Ankit is liable because he did not consult the doctor before applying the ointment.d)Ankit is liable because his grandfather was a kidney patient and any reaction to medicine is forseeable.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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.Ankit was a college student and was living with his grandfather, who had recently got a kidney transplant treatment done. Though he was doing well, he was not allowed to be administered any medication without doctors consultation. One day, his grandfather slipped in the bathroom and twisted his ankle. Ankit got an ointment to reduce pain and rubbed it well on his ankle. After two hours, his grandfather suffered a severe pain in his abdomen and by the time he was taken to the hospital, he passed away on the way. It was diagnosed that the pain killer ointment seeped through his skin and mixed with the blood because of which the kidneys failed. Is Ankit liable for his grandfathers death?a)Ankit is not liable for his grandfathers death because he did what a reasonable prudent man would do.b)Ankit is not liable for the death of his grandfather because he took ordinary care.c)Ankit is liable because he did not consult the doctor before applying the ointment.d)Ankit is liable because his grandfather was a kidney patient and any reaction to medicine is forseeable.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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.Ankit was a college student and was living with his grandfather, who had recently got a kidney transplant treatment done. Though he was doing well, he was not allowed to be administered any medication without doctors consultation. One day, his grandfather slipped in the bathroom and twisted his ankle. Ankit got an ointment to reduce pain and rubbed it well on his ankle. After two hours, his grandfather suffered a severe pain in his abdomen and by the time he was taken to the hospital, he passed away on the way. It was diagnosed that the pain killer ointment seeped through his skin and mixed with the blood because of which the kidneys failed. Is Ankit liable for his grandfathers death?a)Ankit is not liable for his grandfathers death because he did what a reasonable prudent man would do.b)Ankit is not liable for the death of his grandfather because he took ordinary care.c)Ankit is liable because he did not consult the doctor before applying the ointment.d)Ankit is liable because his grandfather was a kidney patient and any reaction to medicine is forseeable.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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.Ankit was a college student and was living with his grandfather, who had recently got a kidney transplant treatment done. Though he was doing well, he was not allowed to be administered any medication without doctors consultation. One day, his grandfather slipped in the bathroom and twisted his ankle. Ankit got an ointment to reduce pain and rubbed it well on his ankle. After two hours, his grandfather suffered a severe pain in his abdomen and by the time he was taken to the hospital, he passed away on the way. It was diagnosed that the pain killer ointment seeped through his skin and mixed with the blood because of which the kidneys failed. Is Ankit liable for his grandfathers death?a)Ankit is not liable for his grandfathers death because he did what a reasonable prudent man would do.b)Ankit is not liable for the death of his grandfather because he took ordinary care.c)Ankit is liable because he did not consult the doctor before applying the ointment.d)Ankit is liable because his grandfather was a kidney patient and any reaction to medicine is forseeable.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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.Ankit was a college student and was living with his grandfather, who had recently got a kidney transplant treatment done. Though he was doing well, he was not allowed to be administered any medication without doctors consultation. One day, his grandfather slipped in the bathroom and twisted his ankle. Ankit got an ointment to reduce pain and rubbed it well on his ankle. After two hours, his grandfather suffered a severe pain in his abdomen and by the time he was taken to the hospital, he passed away on the way. It was diagnosed that the pain killer ointment seeped through his skin and mixed with the blood because of which the kidneys failed. Is Ankit liable for his grandfathers death?a)Ankit is not liable for his grandfathers death because he did what a reasonable prudent man would do.b)Ankit is not liable for the death of his grandfather because he took ordinary care.c)Ankit is liable because he did not consult the doctor before applying the ointment.d)Ankit is liable because his grandfather was a kidney patient and any reaction to medicine is forseeable.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam